Trivial may also refer to any easy
case of a proof, which for the sake of completeness cannot be ignored. For instance, proofs by
mathematical induction have two parts: the "base case" which shows that the theorem is true for a particular initial value (such as
n = 0 or
n = 1), and the inductive step which shows that if the theorem is true for a certain value of
n, then it is also true for the value
n + 1. The base case is often trivial and is identified as such, although there are situations where the base case is difficult but the inductive step is trivial. Similarly, one might want to prove that some property is possessed by all members of a certain set. The main part of the proof will consider the case of a nonempty set, and examine the members in detail; in the case where the set is empty, the property is trivially possessed by all the members of the empty set, since there are none (see
vacuous truth for more). The judgement of whether a situation under consideration is trivial or not depends on who considers it since the situation is obviously true for someone who has sufficient knowledge or experience of it while to someone who has never seen this, it may be even hard to be understood so not trivial at all. And there can be an argument about how quickly and easily a problem should be recognized for the problem to be treated as trivial. The following examples show the subjectivity and ambiguity of the triviality judgement. Triviality also depends on context. A proof in
functional analysis would probably, given a number, trivially assume the existence of a larger number. However, when proving basic results about the natural numbers in
elementary number theory, the proof may very well hinge on the remark that any natural number has a successor – a statement which should itself be proved or be taken as an
axiom so is not trivial (for more, see
Peano's axioms).
Trivial proofs In some texts, a
trivial proof refers to a statement involving a
material implication P→
Q, where the
consequent Q, is always true. Here, the proof follows immediately by virtue of the definition of material implication in which as the implication is true regardless of the truth value of the
antecedent P if the consequent is fixed as true. A related concept is a
vacuous truth, where the antecedent
P in a material implication
P→
Q is false. In this case, the implication is always true regardless of the truth value of the consequent
Q – again by virtue of the definition of material implication. == Humor ==