3 ms·

I hope that's a joke. The most basic numeric integration method is so simple I don't think it needed to be invented.

atleta 8y ago
It's not. It's serious and sad. I remember a news article from a few months ago that exactly mentioned (and made fun) of this paper.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  It's a good example of why multidisciplinary research is essential though
tomxor 8y ago
> The most basic numeric integration method is so simple I don't think it needed to be invented. Exactly, the individual who came up with that paper shows a complete lack of imagination, not merely ignorance - how someone (scientist or not) lacks the ability to see the likelihood of such a simple method having been discovered before is quite puzzling to me... This happens to be closely related to what I was doing recently: implementing a very simple little tool to integrate raw data, (I don't know calculus well at all) but here is my thought process (and probably most peoples): 1. I just want basic integration of raw data, something simple no interpolation at this stage. 2. hmm just draw a polyline through the points - how do I find the area it outlines (figure that bit out quickly it's just basic trig then some simplification, all very intuitive). 3. Ok that's how I find the area, I wonder what this is called it's too simple to not have been discovered hundreds of years ago... goes and does some searching to find matching definition. ... What kind of person gets to step 3 and marvels at their re-invention of the trapezoidal rule and goes straight to publishing a paper? How is it they are "doing science"?
- ams6110 8y ago
  And how is it that the paper got reviewed and accepted for publication without somebody pointing out the obvious? As a 1980s high school student my first thought of how I'd find the area under a curve with a computer was basically to pick random points and see if they were above or below the curve. At the time I had about one year of exposure to Apple II basic. My math teacher said "yeah that's the Monte Carlo technique."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

It's not. It's serious and sad. I remember a news article from a few months ago that exactly mentioned (and made fun) of this paper.

vanderZwan 8y ago
It's a good example of why multidisciplinary research is essential though

tomxor 8y ago

> The most basic numeric integration method is so simple I don't think it needed to be invented. Exactly, the individual who came up with that paper shows a complete lack of imagination, not merely ignorance - how someone (scientist or not) lacks the ability to see the likelihood of such a simple method having been discovered before is quite puzzling to me... This happens to be closely related to what I was doing recently: implementing a very simple little tool to integrate raw data, (I don't know calculus well at all) but here is my thought process (and probably most peoples): 1. I just want basic integration of raw data, something simple no interpolation at this stage. 2. hmm just draw a polyline through the points - how do I find the area it outlines (figure that bit out quickly it's just basic trig then some simplification, all very intuitive). 3. Ok that's how I find the area, I wonder what this is called it's too simple to not have been discovered hundreds of years ago... goes and does some searching to find matching definition. ... What kind of person gets to step 3 and marvels at their re-invention of the trapezoidal rule and goes straight to publishing a paper? How is it they are "doing science"?

ams6110 8y ago
And how is it that the paper got reviewed and accepted for publication without somebody pointing out the obvious? As a 1980s high school student my first thought of how I'd find the area under a curve with a computer was basically to pick random points and see if they were above or below the curve. At the time I had about one year of exposure to Apple II basic. My math teacher said "yeah that's the Monte Carlo technique."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]