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

Theorem 1kp2ke3k 27157
 Description: Example for df-dec 11438, 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 11438 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 11252 . . . 4 1 ∈ ℕ0
2 0nn0 11251 . . . 4 0 ∈ ℕ0
31, 2deccl 11456 . . 3 10 ∈ ℕ0
43, 2deccl 11456 . 2 100 ∈ ℕ0
5 2nn0 11253 . . . 4 2 ∈ ℕ0
65, 2deccl 11456 . . 3 20 ∈ ℕ0
76, 2deccl 11456 . 2 200 ∈ ℕ0
8 eqid 2621 . 2 1000 = 1000
9 eqid 2621 . 2 2000 = 2000
10 eqid 2621 . . 3 100 = 100
11 eqid 2621 . . 3 200 = 200
12 eqid 2621 . . . 4 10 = 10
13 eqid 2621 . . . 4 20 = 20
14 1p2e3 11096 . . . 4 (1 + 2) = 3
15 00id 10155 . . . 4 (0 + 0) = 0
161, 2, 5, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15decadd 11514 . . 3 (10 + 20) = 30
173, 2, 6, 2, 10, 11, 16, 15decadd 11514 . 2 (100 + 200) = 300
184, 2, 7, 2, 8, 9, 17, 15decadd 11514 1 (1000 + 2000) = 3000
 Colors of variables: wff setvar class Syntax hints:   = wceq 1480  (class class class)co 6604  0cc0 9880  1c1 9881   + caddc 9883  2c2 11014  3c3 11015  ;cdc 11437 This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1719  ax-4 1734  ax-5 1836  ax-6 1885  ax-7 1932  ax-8 1989  ax-9 1996  ax-10 2016  ax-11 2031  ax-12 2044  ax-13 2245  ax-ext 2601  ax-sep 4741  ax-nul 4749  ax-pow 4803  ax-pr 4867  ax-un 6902  ax-resscn 9937  ax-1cn 9938  ax-icn 9939  ax-addcl 9940  ax-addrcl 9941  ax-mulcl 9942  ax-mulrcl 9943  ax-mulcom 9944  ax-addass 9945  ax-mulass 9946  ax-distr 9947  ax-i2m1 9948  ax-1ne0 9949  ax-1rid 9950  ax-rnegex 9951  ax-rrecex 9952  ax-cnre 9953  ax-pre-lttri 9954  ax-pre-lttrn 9955  ax-pre-ltadd 9956 This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 197  df-or 385  df-an 386  df-3or 1037  df-3an 1038  df-tru 1483  df-ex 1702  df-nf 1707  df-sb 1878  df-eu 2473  df-mo 2474  df-clab 2608  df-cleq 2614  df-clel 2617  df-nfc 2750  df-ne 2791  df-nel 2894  df-ral 2912  df-rex 2913  df-reu 2914  df-rab 2916  df-v 3188  df-sbc 3418  df-csb 3515  df-dif 3558  df-un 3560  df-in 3562  df-ss 3569  df-pss 3571  df-nul 3892  df-if 4059  df-pw 4132  df-sn 4149  df-pr 4151  df-tp 4153  df-op 4155  df-uni 4403  df-iun 4487  df-br 4614  df-opab 4674  df-mpt 4675  df-tr 4713  df-eprel 4985  df-id 4989  df-po 4995  df-so 4996  df-fr 5033  df-we 5035  df-xp 5080  df-rel 5081  df-cnv 5082  df-co 5083  df-dm 5084  df-rn 5085  df-res 5086  df-ima 5087  df-pred 5639  df-ord 5685  df-on 5686  df-lim 5687  df-suc 5688  df-iota 5810  df-fun 5849  df-fn 5850  df-f 5851  df-f1 5852  df-fo 5853  df-f1o 5854  df-fv 5855  df-ov 6607  df-om 7013  df-wrecs 7352  df-recs 7413  df-rdg 7451  df-er 7687  df-en 7900  df-dom 7901  df-sdom 7902  df-pnf 10020  df-mnf 10021  df-ltxr 10023  df-nn 10965  df-2 11023  df-3 11024  df-4 11025  df-5 11026  df-6 11027  df-7 11028  df-8 11029  df-9 11030  df-n0 11237  df-dec 11438 This theorem is referenced by: (None)
 Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator