Talk:Light-foot

Distance or time?

Is a light foot a distance, or is it, as I thought, the time it takes light to travel one foot? It seems to me that, as a light year is not a time, so a light foot would not be a distance. If I am mistaken, perhaps it would be appropriate to mention this misconception and explicitly correct it. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody had anything to say for over a year, so I'm being bold and changing this to what seems to me to be a more rational definition. If a light foot were the distance that light travels in a nanosecond, then a light foot would be simply a useless name for a foot. It makes as little sense as defining a light year as a time. It does make sense, however, to describe a nanosecond as being so short a period of time that light travels only one foot, and to use this to point out that communications circuits have to be designed with this in mind. I may be wrong, but I can't find any reliable sources for any definition of light foot. If you disagree with me, feel free to revert this, but I will insist upon the unreferenced template unless you have some references. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it. I always assumed that since it was documented before I was born, that it would be clear. My mistake. A light year is a distance, a light foot is a billionth of a light second, only because its close to a foot. You could call it a light nano second, then it would be in alignment with the other definitions.

R.Adm Grace Hopper, did hand out peices of wire, and it was documented in the Time Life series on computers. Her **MUCH** more significant contribution than COBOL was she wrote the first compiler, which compilers are still in use today. ( as is COBOL, but it is not as 'crusty' ) i.e. COBOL is not as significant as compilers.

"lightfoot - definition of lightfoot by the Free Online Dictionary ...

www.thefreedictionary.com/lightfoot Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia, 0.01 sec. light-foot·ed (l t f t d) also light·foot (-f t ). adj. Treading with light and nimble ease. light -foot ed·ly adv. light -foot ed·ness ... Light-foot - definition of Light-foot by the Free Online Dictionary ... www.thefreedictionary.com/Light-foot

a. 1. Having a light, springy step; moving lightly and nimbly; nimble in running or dancing; active; as, light-foot Iris . Opposite of heavy-footed .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How about reading the article for accuracy?

Nobody said anything about a flat earth for centuries. A piece of wire marked 'Light Foot' hangs in the Computer Museum in Mountain View. http://www.computerhistory.org/ ( it is 11.8" Long, not in duration, i.e. it is a measure of distance. The way we remake history in our own view and revisionism, is to simply change it. Go and change light year to be consistent. It was Coined by Grace Hopper, who's Wikipedia article names her most significant achievement as compilers ( still in wide spread use ) vs COBOL which is NOT in wide spread use. I am still in contact with AMD regarding their use of the idea. At least AMD is willing to talk, vs Intel, which didn't respond. The computer museum is also in the loop. ( They have the piece of wire! ) But again, if you can yell louder, then history will not be based upon history, but on revisionism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 17:08, February 21, 2013

It seems the only reference for this article is Mermin's book, in which he redefined the foot (and the light-foot) for the purposes of his book. Therefore, I added {{refimprove}} to the article. Is there a page on the Computer Museum's web site (or any other reliable source) that shows Hopper's definition? GoingBatty (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GoingBatty. I am no expert on this topic. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This article describes the wire used for illustration purposes by Grace Hopper. It never uses the term "light foot". I would hope the museum knows that a term like "light foot" is a time measurement, not a length. The piece of wire is no doubt a valid piece of historical interest, but their label is not. She may have said it at some point, but that statement needs to be corroborated. Praemonitus (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that this reference quotes someone speaking of her talk. "Then she'd say, 'But then people talk about how minor the difference is between a microsecond and nanosecond. I have microsecond right here,' and pull out 1,000 feet of wire and throw it on the desk. 'That's a microsecond,' she'd say. It really helped people see the difference." This appears to say that she was talking about time intervals. I'd also refer to the article Light-second where it says, "the light-second can form the basis for other units of length, ranging from the light-nanosecond (just under one U.S. or imperial foot) to the light-minute, light-hour and light-day". I doubt that "light-foot" supposed to be a synonym for "light-nanosecond". But I wouldn't count either of these as authoritative statements about the definition of "light-foot", rather they are merely suggestive. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sirs: I consider myself to be an authority on this subject. I saw the picture in the book 'Time Life Series on Computer:Speed and Power' and recognized it immediately, and calculated its length. ( Turns out the picture was accurate...as accurate as I could measure. ] I saw the piece of actual wire with appropriate label on the wall of the computer museum in Mountain View, recognized it immediately. Its labeled, c.1956, but Ill talk to the curator again via Email to verify how they got this date. I had read that she started lecturing in 1954, and continued into the late 1960s. I will verify both these facts. I created this article on Wikipedia, the first time, and it got deleted. Thanks. Would a picture of the wire be appropriate? If it is authentic, which it looks to be, would it add to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you agree that Gamow, who published the expression in 1947, has priority over Hopper, who started lecturing on the topic in 1954. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing the book and providing a picture would be very good. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamow reference

Gamow's "One, Two, Three, Infinity" was originally published in 1947, and it has the same mention of a "light-foot" as cited here from the third edition. I'm not going to make a major rewrite, but I do suggest that it should be done (unless someone can find an earlier reference - or, indeed, if someone finds a reliable source defending the "light-foot"="11.8 inches" equivalence): Because he used the term in 1947, Gamow should be given priority over Hopper. Also, I don't see why we should mention Hopper's other achievements or the development of smaller circuits. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't access to the original work, so I couldn't be certain if it is the same as the later edition cited herein. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find this reference?

I have access to a printed copy of the first edition, which agrees with the online copy of the 3rd edition, including the page number. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This book "One two three, infinity, 1947 edition search for Light-foot, returned this result. ( not the 1961 edition )

   p.77 - 1 matching term

[[1]] The 1961 edition: Returned No Results. The 1965 edition: Returned:

   p.79 - 1 matching term

I have in hand a printed, real copy of the 1952 edition of One, Two, Three, Infinity. This is old enough to establish priority of Gamow. On page 77, he writes, after discussing light-years and such, 'We can also reverse the procedure and speak of a "light-mile" ... Similarly one "light-foot" is 0.000000011 sec." Then he goes on to speak of a four-dimensional "cube" whose "space-dimensions" are 1 ft. and whose "space-duration" (his term, but I suspect this is a lapse, and should be "duration-dimension") is "0.0000000011 sec." TomS TDotO (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)