Word somewhere between useless and straw-man

Question

I would like to find/use a word that is slightly less pejorative than "useless" for: an example that provides almost no help. For example, something like:

The absolute value function finds the non-negative value of a number. Here is an example: 
f(x) = abs(1) = 1

I would like the meaning to hopefully imply something like "the person who wrote this gave it close to zero thought, and it's not helpful to anyone who doesn't already know what it means."
I come across this a lot in documentation, and was looking for a good and strong word for it without using something too pejorative!
My current thinking is to say:

The bulk of the examples listed in the documentation are lazy, unimaginative, and more-or-less useless.

Tom · Answer

Boorish - Crude, ungracious, insensitive
Nugatory - Of no value or importance
"The person who wrote this nugatory piece did so in a boorish manner" - Probably overkill but a bit of fun.

Anton · Answer

The example that you give is superficial, trivial and incomplete.
It is superficial because it does not cover the main feature of the absolute function, which is that Abs(A) = Abs(-A) = A.
It is trivial because it only covers the simplest aspect of that feature: Abs(A)=A. It is incomplete for the same reason.
Of these I prefer trivial, being a term that is used both in English prose and in mathematical discussion.

Richard Kayser · Answer

How about unilluminating? From M-W:

unilluminating: failing to enlighten or clarify : not illuminating

The example provided for the absolute value function is unilluminating. It fails to enlighten the uninformed reader as to what the function actually means. It sheds no light on the meaning of the function. Seems less pejorative than useless.

LPH · Answer

First of all, it seems to me that real criticism of this  statement from a teacher is difficult; it is an example and that's what's been claimed. It is not uncommon in the mathematical literature to find such assertions, which in the end are criptic revelations that the writer mentions with the intent to stimulate the student, to make him/her think; that is really one of the ways teachers put little riddles to the students, another well known one being to comment basic deductions with a "follows clearly" or a "we clearly have", to name but two, and every student in mathematics knows that not all such cases yield something absolutely clear the first time: there is sometimes some digging out of fact to be done to get at the bottom of those riddles.
I disagree also with user Anton in characterizing the assertion as trivial in the context of teaching the absolute value; the equality used is certainly trivial in a discussion on quantum mechanics, for instance, but not quite so in an introduction to elementary functions before elemantary calculus.
Finally, the formulation of this statement is not proper. What is "1"? What is "-1"? They are both numbers or put another way relatively to symbols, values; so we end up with the non negative value of a value, or put differently the value of a value, which shows ill definition of terms. I was once lectured about the absolute value and the definition given, irreproachable that one (after you have learned the distance function), was "The absolute value is the distance of a number from the origin.". Why not give the example "|1|=1" in this case? "1" is a number just as any other.
If, however, we absolutely want to incriminate this indirectness with which we might want to credit the writer, although the main criticism I see is in the terms used (not mathematical) we might say this.

This writer showed the nature of the absolute value function in a lackadaisical fashion. (which I don't really believe)

Word somewhere between useless and straw-man

4 Answers

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question