 Metamath Proof Explorer < Previous   Next > Nearby theorems Mirrors  >  Home  >  MPE Home  >  Th. List  >  1kp2ke3k Structured version   Visualization version   GIF version

Theorem 1kp2ke3k 26461
 Description: Example for df-dec 11326, 1000 + 2000 = 3000. This proof disproves (by counterexample) the assertion of Hao Wang, who stated, "There is a theorem in the primitive notation of set theory that corresponds to the arithmetic theorem 1000 + 2000 = 3000. The formula would be forbiddingly long... even if (one) knows the definitions and is asked to simplify the long formula according to them, chances are he will make errors and arrive at some incorrect result." (Hao Wang, "Theory and practice in mathematics" , In Thomas Tymoczko, editor, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp 129-152, Birkauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1986. (QA8.6.N48). The quote itself is on page 140.) This is noted in Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics by Norman Megill (2007) section 1.1.3. Megill then states, "A number of writers have conveyed the impression that the kind of absolute rigor provided by Metamath is an impossible dream, suggesting that a complete, formal verification of a typical theorem would take millions of steps in untold volumes of books... These writers assume, however, that in order to achieve the kind of complete formal verification they desire one must break down a proof into individual primitive steps that make direct reference to the axioms. This is not necessary. There is no reason not to make use of previously proved theorems rather than proving them over and over... A hierarchy of theorems and definitions permits an exponential growth in the formula sizes and primitive proof steps to be described with only a linear growth in the number of symbols used. Of course, this is how ordinary informal mathematics is normally done anyway, but with Metamath it can be done with absolute rigor and precision." The proof here starts with (2 + 1) = 3, commutes it, and repeatedly multiplies both sides by ten. This is certainly longer than traditional mathematical proofs, e.g., there are a number of steps explicitly shown here to show that we're allowed to do operations such as multiplication. However, while longer, the proof is clearly a manageable size - even though every step is rigorously derived all the way back to the primitive notions of set theory and logic. And while there's a risk of making errors, the many independent verifiers make it much less likely that an incorrect result will be accepted. This proof heavily relies on the decimal constructor df-dec 11326 developed by Mario Carneiro in 2015. The underlying Metamath language has an intentionally very small set of primitives; it doesn't even have a built-in construct for numbers. Instead, the digits are defined using these primitives, and the decimal constructor is used to make it easy to express larger numbers as combinations of digits. (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 29-Jun-2016.) (Shortened by Mario Carneiro using the arithmetic algorithm in mmj2, 30-Jun-2016.)
Assertion
Ref Expression
1kp2ke3k (1000 + 2000) = 3000

Proof of Theorem 1kp2ke3k
StepHypRef Expression
1 1nn0 11155 . . . 4 1 ∈ ℕ0
2 0nn0 11154 . . . 4 0 ∈ ℕ0
31, 2deccl 11344 . . 3 10 ∈ ℕ0
43, 2deccl 11344 . 2 100 ∈ ℕ0
5 2nn0 11156 . . . 4 2 ∈ ℕ0
65, 2deccl 11344 . . 3 20 ∈ ℕ0
76, 2deccl 11344 . 2 200 ∈ ℕ0
8 eqid 2609 . 2 1000 = 1000
9 eqid 2609 . 2 2000 = 2000
10 eqid 2609 . . 3 100 = 100
11 eqid 2609 . . 3 200 = 200
12 eqid 2609 . . . 4 10 = 10
13 eqid 2609 . . . 4 20 = 20
14 1p2e3 10999 . . . 4 (1 + 2) = 3
15 00id 10062 . . . 4 (0 + 0) = 0
161, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15decadd 11402 . . 3 (10 + 20) = 30
173, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15decadd 11402 . 2 (100 + 200) = 300
184, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15decadd 11402 1 (1000 + 2000) = 3000
 Colors of variables: wff setvar class Syntax hints:   = wceq 1474  (class class class)co 6527  0cc0 9792  1c1 9793   + caddc 9795  2c2 10917  3c3 10918  ;cdc 11325 This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1712  ax-4 1727  ax-5 1826  ax-6 1874  ax-7 1921  ax-8 1978  ax-9 1985  ax-10 2005  ax-11 2020  ax-12 2032  ax-13 2232  ax-ext 2589  ax-sep 4703  ax-nul 4712  ax-pow 4764  ax-pr 4828  ax-un 6824  ax-resscn 9849  ax-1cn 9850  ax-icn 9851  ax-addcl 9852  ax-addrcl 9853  ax-mulcl 9854  ax-mulrcl 9855  ax-mulcom 9856  ax-addass 9857  ax-mulass 9858  ax-distr 9859  ax-i2m1 9860  ax-1ne0 9861  ax-1rid 9862  ax-rnegex 9863  ax-rrecex 9864  ax-cnre 9865  ax-pre-lttri 9866  ax-pre-lttrn 9867  ax-pre-ltadd 9868 This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 195  df-or 383  df-an 384  df-3or 1031  df-3an 1032  df-tru 1477  df-ex 1695  df-nf 1700  df-sb 1867  df-eu 2461  df-mo 2462  df-clab 2596  df-cleq 2602  df-clel 2605  df-nfc 2739  df-ne 2781  df-nel 2782  df-ral 2900  df-rex 2901  df-reu 2902  df-rab 2904  df-v 3174  df-sbc 3402  df-csb 3499  df-dif 3542  df-un 3544  df-in 3546  df-ss 3553  df-pss 3555  df-nul 3874  df-if 4036  df-pw 4109  df-sn 4125  df-pr 4127  df-tp 4129  df-op 4131  df-uni 4367  df-iun 4451  df-br 4578  df-opab 4638  df-mpt 4639  df-tr 4675  df-eprel 4939  df-id 4943  df-po 4949  df-so 4950  df-fr 4987  df-we 4989  df-xp 5034  df-rel 5035  df-cnv 5036  df-co 5037  df-dm 5038  df-rn 5039  df-res 5040  df-ima 5041  df-pred 5583  df-ord 5629  df-on 5630  df-lim 5631  df-suc 5632  df-iota 5754  df-fun 5792  df-fn 5793  df-f 5794  df-f1 5795  df-fo 5796  df-f1o 5797  df-fv 5798  df-ov 6530  df-om 6935  df-wrecs 7271  df-recs 7332  df-rdg 7370  df-er 7606  df-en 7819  df-dom 7820  df-sdom 7821  df-pnf 9932  df-mnf 9933  df-ltxr 9935  df-nn 10868  df-2 10926  df-3 10927  df-4 10928  df-5 10929  df-6 10930  df-7 10931  df-8 10932  df-9 10933  df-n0 11140  df-dec 11326 This theorem is referenced by: (None)
 Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator