The author of this blog post is wrong to say this is 'integration'[0], and is also later wrong to say it's the 'trapezoidal rule'[1]. It seems to me that it's diagnostically useful to have a standardised method for estimating the area under the curve, rather than everyone inventing their own method. [0](since you don't know the whole function, you only know point estimates at particular moments in time) [1] (trapezoi…
This comment is just wrong. It's still integration even if you only have enough data to approximate the integral. Also, Wikipedia's definition of the trapezoidal rule permits intervals with different sizes.[1] I don't know why you'd defend a researcher who lacked basic math knowledge, and more damningly refused to acknowledge her mistake once it was brought to light. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoidal_ru…
In my view integration is by definition part of calculus, and requires the concept of the infinitesimal. (This is maybe semantic, but Wikipedia agrees with me in this case).
The paper shares one of the many goals of integration, which is to find the area under the curve, but you literally cannot use integration as the tool to do this here.
So, it's not integration.
A comment below calls this "numerical integration" - which I also find dubious. Numerical integration is still using calculus - you have to know the whole function - but without getting to a closed form answer.