Comment by jerf

This is in the class of things where even if the specific text doesn't trace to a true story, it has certainly happened somewhere, many times over.

In the math space it's not even quite as silly as it sounds. Something can be both "obvious" and "true", but it can take some substantial analysis to make sure the obvious thing is true by hitting it with the corner cases and possibly exceptions. There is a long history of obvious-yet-false statements. It's also completely sensible for something to be trivially true, yet be worth some substantial analysis to be sure that it really is true, because there's also a history of trivial-yet-false statements.

I could analogize it in our space to "code so simple it is obviously bug free" [1]... even code that is so simple that it is obviously bug free could still stand to be analyzed for bugs. If it stands up to that analysis, it is still "so simple it is obviously bug free"... but that doesn't mean you couldn't spend hours carefully verifying that, especially if you were deeply dependent on it for some reason.

Heck I've got a non-trivial number of unit tests that arguably fit that classification, making sure that the code that is so simple it is bug free really is... because it's distressing how many times I've discovered I was wrong about that.

[1]: In reference to Tony Hoare's "There are two ways to write code: write code so simple there are obviously no bugs in it, or write code so complex that there are no obvious bugs in it."