[opaque]

> She says she didn't publish this model for glory, but she also named it after herself.

She didn't name it after herself, the users did:

> collegues ... began using it and addressed it as "Tai's formula"

As is typically the way with eponymous scientific works, people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson. The author doesn't typically declare "I have discovered X, which I shall call ${self.name}"

[zucker42]

She used the name "Tai's model" in the original paper.[1] I would consider that naming the method after herself.

[1] (PDF link https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf

[shawnz]

The quote in the post above indicates that the name was in use before the paper was published.

[newswasboring]

If this was true, a paper should have been cited. Like all the other people did for their letters

[newswasboring]

I have published multiple photonics papers and contributed to many and nobody has ever had the need to provide a citation for maxwell's equations. I would consider it reference padding if you do. Point is people could still have used the term without her publishing it. Also, am I supposed to take her word for it, at least she could have cited somewhere which tried to use it and give her credit. This seems like if anyone uses trapezoidal method she would take credit because nobody had a citation so everyone was just using "Tai's model".

[EvgeniyZh]

> people citing the work add the author's name e.g. Maxwell's equations or Higgs' boson.

I don't think this rule applies here, because the paper introducing "Tai's rule" calls it "Tai's rule" rather than others citing it. As if Higgs called it Higgs' boson in his paper.

[ghostwriter]

There's huge difference in significance though. Maxwell's equations have their distinctive name because he did discover a missing piece in a system (set) of equations that had been known before as separate phenomena and yet weren't used as a whole. The missing piece he discovered on paper, with a pure logical reasoning alone, that would bring consistency to the set of the equations, was later identified and confirmed as electromagnetic fields in reality.

[beerandt]

Only because she still claims (or at least doesn't dispute) "ownership" of the "discovery."

At best, a distinction without a practical difference.