This is a famous article in the mathematics community. While her results were known to humans for several hundred years she claimed they were not known to her. If this is correct then her derivation is an impressive feat but certainly not worthy of publication. According to [1] the paper still receives citations and some people refer to "Tai's model" instead of the Trapezoidal Rule.
You can read some comments to her article and her response in [2]. I think she should have acknowledged that her method is the Trapezoidal Rule. Maybe she has in the 20+ years since. I don't know.
The whole saga reminds me of a time that member of the biology department asked me, "Why does the Ti-83 calculate scientific notation wrong?" I asked what she meant. She gave me this example:
Calculate (3.75 x 10^23)/(9.34 x 10^(-5))
She enters the problem into the calculator to show me that it does indeed calculate the wrong value. She entered
3.75 x 10^23/9.34 x 10^(-5)
I had to explain to her that the order of operations was important.
You can read some comments to her article and her response in [2]. I think she should have acknowledged that her method is the Trapezoidal Rule. Maybe she has in the 20+ years since. I don't know.
The whole saga reminds me of a time that member of the biology department asked me, "Why does the Ti-83 calculate scientific notation wrong?" I asked what she meant. She gave me this example:
Calculate (3.75 x 10^23)/(9.34 x 10^(-5))
She enters the problem into the calculator to show me that it does indeed calculate the wrong value. She entered
3.75 x 10^23/9.34 x 10^(-5)
I had to explain to her that the order of operations was important.
[1] http://johncanning.net/wp/?p=1863
[2] http://www.math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/math1132s14/handouts/taic...