Theorem 1kp2ke3k 10562

Description: Example for df-dec 8478, 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 8478 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 8304	. . . 4 ⊢ 1 ∈ ℕ0
2		0nn0 8303	. . . 4 ⊢ 0 ∈ ℕ0
3	1, 2	deccl 8491	. . 3 ⊢ ;10 ∈ ℕ0
4	3, 2	deccl 8491	. 2 ⊢ ;;100 ∈ ℕ0
5		2nn0 8305	. . . 4 ⊢ 2 ∈ ℕ0
6	5, 2	deccl 8491	. . 3 ⊢ ;20 ∈ ℕ0
7	6, 2	deccl 8491	. 2 ⊢ ;;200 ∈ ℕ0
8		eqid 2081	. 2 ⊢ ;;;1000 = ;;;1000
9		eqid 2081	. 2 ⊢ ;;;2000 = ;;;2000
10		eqid 2081	. . 3 ⊢ ;;100 = ;;100
11		eqid 2081	. . 3 ⊢ ;;200 = ;;200
12		eqid 2081	. . . 4 ⊢ ;10 = ;10
13		eqid 2081	. . . 4 ⊢ ;20 = ;20
14		1p2e3 8166	. . . 4 ⊢ (1 + 2) = 3
15		00id 7249	. . . 4 ⊢ (0 + 0) = 0
16	1, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15	decadd 8530	. . 3 ⊢ (;10 + ;20) = ;30
17	3, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15	decadd 8530	. 2 ⊢ (;;100 + ;;200) = ;;300
18	4, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15	decadd 8530	1 ⊢ (;;;1000 + ;;;2000) = ;;;3000

Syntax hints:   = wceq 1284  (class class class)co 5532  0cc0 6981  1c1 6982   + caddc 6984  2c2 8089  3c3 8090  ;cdc 8477

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-1 5  ax-2 6  ax-mp 7  ax-ia1 104  ax-ia2 105  ax-ia3 106  ax-in1 576  ax-in2 577  ax-io 662  ax-5 1376  ax-7 1377  ax-gen 1378  ax-ie1 1422  ax-ie2 1423  ax-8 1435  ax-10 1436  ax-11 1437  ax-i12 1438  ax-bndl 1439  ax-4 1440  ax-14 1445  ax-17 1459  ax-i9 1463  ax-ial 1467  ax-i5r 1468  ax-ext 2063  ax-sep 3896  ax-pow 3948  ax-pr 3964  ax-setind 4280  ax-cnex 7067  ax-resscn 7068  ax-1cn 7069  ax-1re 7070  ax-icn 7071  ax-addcl 7072  ax-addrcl 7073  ax-mulcl 7074  ax-addcom 7076  ax-mulcom 7077  ax-addass 7078  ax-mulass 7079  ax-distr 7080  ax-i2m1 7081  ax-1rid 7083  ax-0id 7084  ax-rnegex 7085  ax-cnre 7087

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 115  df-3an 921  df-tru 1287  df-fal 1290  df-nf 1390  df-sb 1686  df-eu 1944  df-mo 1945  df-clab 2068  df-cleq 2074  df-clel 2077  df-nfc 2208  df-ne 2246  df-ral 2353  df-rex 2354  df-reu 2355  df-rab 2357  df-v 2603  df-sbc 2816  df-dif 2975  df-un 2977  df-in 2979  df-ss 2986  df-pw 3384  df-sn 3404  df-pr 3405  df-op 3407  df-uni 3602  df-int 3637  df-br 3786  df-opab 3840  df-id 4048  df-xp 4369  df-rel 4370  df-cnv 4371  df-co 4372  df-dm 4373  df-iota 4887  df-fun 4924  df-fv 4930  df-riota 5488  df-ov 5535  df-oprab 5536  df-mpt2 5537  df-sub 7281  df-inn 8040  df-2 8098  df-3 8099  df-4 8100  df-5 8101  df-6 8102  df-7 8103  df-8 8104  df-9 8105  df-n0 8289  df-dec 8478

This theorem is referenced by: (None)