Theorem 1kp2ke3k 26695

Description: Example for df-dec 11370, 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 11370 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

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		1nn0 11185	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 11184	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 11388	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 11388	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 11186	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 11388	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 11388	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2610	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2610	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2610	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2610	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2610	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2610	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 11029	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 10090	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 11446	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 11446	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 11446	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1475  (class class class)co 6549  0cc0 9815  1c1 9816   + caddc 9818  2c2 10947  3c3 10948  ;cdc 11369

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1713  ax-4 1728  ax-5 1827  ax-6 1875  ax-7 1922  ax-8 1979  ax-9 1986  ax-10 2006  ax-11 2021  ax-12 2034  ax-13 2234  ax-ext 2590  ax-sep 4709  ax-nul 4717  ax-pow 4769  ax-pr 4833  ax-un 6847  ax-resscn 9872  ax-1cn 9873  ax-icn 9874  ax-addcl 9875  ax-addrcl 9876  ax-mulcl 9877  ax-mulrcl 9878  ax-mulcom 9879  ax-addass 9880  ax-mulass 9881  ax-distr 9882  ax-i2m1 9883  ax-1ne0 9884  ax-1rid 9885  ax-rnegex 9886  ax-rrecex 9887  ax-cnre 9888  ax-pre-lttri 9889  ax-pre-lttrn 9890  ax-pre-ltadd 9891

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 196  df-or 384  df-an 385  df-3or 1032  df-3an 1033  df-tru 1478  df-ex 1696  df-nf 1701  df-sb 1868  df-eu 2462  df-mo 2463  df-clab 2597  df-cleq 2603  df-clel 2606  df-nfc 2740  df-ne 2782  df-nel 2783  df-ral 2901  df-rex 2902  df-reu 2903  df-rab 2905  df-v 3175  df-sbc 3403  df-csb 3500  df-dif 3543  df-un 3545  df-in 3547  df-ss 3554  df-pss 3556  df-nul 3875  df-if 4037  df-pw 4110  df-sn 4126  df-pr 4128  df-tp 4130  df-op 4132  df-uni 4373  df-iun 4457  df-br 4584  df-opab 4644  df-mpt 4645  df-tr 4681  df-eprel 4949  df-id 4953  df-po 4959  df-so 4960  df-fr 4997  df-we 4999  df-xp 5044  df-rel 5045  df-cnv 5046  df-co 5047  df-dm 5048  df-rn 5049  df-res 5050  df-ima 5051  df-pred 5597  df-ord 5643  df-on 5644  df-lim 5645  df-suc 5646  df-iota 5768  df-fun 5806  df-fn 5807  df-f 5808  df-f1 5809  df-fo 5810  df-f1o 5811  df-fv 5812  df-ov 6552  df-om 6958  df-wrecs 7294  df-recs 7355  df-rdg 7393  df-er 7629  df-en 7842  df-dom 7843  df-sdom 7844  df-pnf 9955  df-mnf 9956  df-ltxr 9958  df-nn 10898  df-2 10956  df-3 10957  df-4 10958  df-5 10959  df-6 10960  df-7 10961  df-8 10962  df-9 10963  df-n0 11170  df-dec 11370

This theorem is referenced by: (None)