/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11774067]

Is splitting colors into green blue yellow red purple orange fairly objective, or is it arbitrary and subjective that we normally split them into these 6? Like would it be just as valid to split them into 4, or 9, etc?
and what about pink, why is pink such a fucking weird color that is greater than 700nm and less than 400nm what the fucking fuck??

[Anonymous No.11774142]

>>11774067
oh look it's tzuyu of twice

[Anonymous No.11774143]

>>11774067
tl;dr but pic related sure makes me wanna split some yellow, ya feel me?

[Anonymous No.11774268]

>>11774067
It's all arbitrary and down to the interplay between human culture and human vision. Read up on what a color space is for the applied science and the material consequences of the theory, read up on the philosophy of color for the interesting stuff eg: the ancient greeks had no concept of blue and had a five way split of the color wheel.

[Anonymous No.11774289]

>>11774143
>>11774142
she already hit the wall

[Anonymous No.11774314]

>>11774067

From an individual perspective, the separation of colors is objective: it is not your opinion that red and green are distinct entities; that's just the way it is. You can still argue that this is subjective in the same sense that reading the measurement of a ruler is subjective, but this is as close to objective as we are going to get.

Problems arise when you need to communicate what you see to other people. The problem with expressing color in words is that you need to decide on a definition. This is done by a sort of data feeding. You get another person and you point out objects and say: that's red, that's not red, that's red, that's not red...and hopefully after enough examples you chisel out in the mind of the other person mind what you mean by red. This approximation, this collective understanding, your personal understanding of the word red is subjective.

Now, just because it is subjective, that doesn't mean it is arbitrary. It is systematic; it is based on how a 'typical' human being perceives color. The scientific question is what are we really perceiving (the underlying physical reality to the extent that there is one) when we talk about color. Answering this question bridges the gap of language and our personal observations. We can use tautology: Light with x characteristics is perceived as red; therefore, red is light with x characteristics. This isn't undeniably objective; it is just strong correlation, but you can say that to the extent that we can know anything, we can know red has those characteristics.

We see a lot more than we actually communicate to other people. Our color vocabulary is limited by utilitarian purposes of what we want to communicate to other people. You can call this arbitrary and insist we change it, but if you try to make me memorize a 100 different color names I'm through!

[Anonymous No.11774460]

>>11774067
https://www.gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour/

[Anonymous No.11774466]

>>11774314
>if you try to make me memorize a 100 different color names I'm through!
t. crayola-deprived childhood

[Anonymous No.11774545]

The wavelength sensitivity of our cone cells has an influence on what we perceive as being separate colors but as others have mentioned, there is also a cultural component to it, likely influenced by the dominate colors in the important parts of our environment.
Maybe someday we'll have artificial eyes that we can adjust to be sensitive to different parts of the visible and near visible spectrum.

[Anonymous No.11774661]

>>11774460
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl7eh1
@ 2m30s

[Anonymous No.11774737]

>>11774460
>>11774661

“So to sum the story up as I understand it: The experiment shown in the documentary was a dramatization; the genuine color experiments done with the Himba, some years before, used a different sort of stimuli and a different experimental method; the stimuli shown in the documentary were modeled on those used by Paul Kay and others in experiments on other groups; but in all of the relevant experiments, the dependent measure was reaction time (in finding a matching color or an oddball color), not success or failure.

“The BBC’s presentation of the mocked-up experiment — purporting to show that the Himba are completely unable to distinguish blue and green shades that seem quite different to us, but can easily distinguish shades of green that seem identical to us — was apparently a journalistic fabrication, created by the documentary’s editors after the fact, and was never asserted by the researchers themselves, much less demonstrated experimentally.

“This explains why the “experiment” was never published, and why the stimuli shown in the documentary don’t make sense.

“As a result, the striking and impressive assertions made in the documentary must be completely discounted, and we learn yet again that the BBC deserves shockingly little credibility in reporting on science.”

FAKE NEWS. People embellish and lie to secure funding, to inspire awe, or promote a certain outlook.

[Anonymous No.11774883]

>>11774545
>red cones
do people really?

[Anonymous No.11775015]

>>11774737
Where is this quote taken from?

[Anonymous No.11775035]

>>11775015
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18237

[Anonymous No.11775054]

>>11774067
>>11774142
>>11774143
>>11774268
>>11774289
>>11774314
>>11774460
>>11774466
>>11774545
>>11774545
>>11774661
>>11774737
>>11774883
>>11775015
>>11775035

I hate Asian people. I particularly hate Korean females that pretend to be cute to attract a bunch of depraved cunts.

[Anonymous No.11775075]

>>11774737
>“The BBC’s presentation of the mocked-up experiment — purporting to show that the Himba are completely unable to distinguish blue and green shades that seem quite different to us, but can easily distinguish shades of green that seem identical to us — was apparently a journalistic fabrication, created by the documentary’s editors after the fact, and was never asserted by the researchers themselves, much less demonstrated experimentally.
[source needed]

[Anonymous No.11775139]

>>11775054
>I particularly hate Korean females that pretend to be cute
t. Kim yo-jong

[Anonymous No.11775183]

Many cultures view light and dark blue as two distinct colors. The rainbow, as well is traditionally viewed as having 7 colors.

There is certainly a mathematical basis for the aesthetic appeal of division of the spectrum into 7 colors, really beyond the scope of a 4chan post.

In technology, though, we reduce the spectrum into 3 colors: red, blue and green, and generate all colors through a combination of those; I’m sure there is a scientific basis for this being the most efficient way to produce electronics, although I don’t know it.

As for the 6-color color wheel, it’s a composite of the two smallest primes that allows for both inversion and combination of colors, it’s selected for efficiency for the same reason a 6-sided ring is so common in chemical compounds.

[Anonymous No.11775191]

>>11775183
>There is certainly a mathematical basis for the aesthetic appeal of division of the spectrum into 7 colors, really beyond the scope of a 4chan post.
Got a keyword for me to look up? Sounds interesting, but all I get on a first google search is Pythagorean cult faggotry

[Anonymous No.11775229]

It would have been nice if my elementary school teachers understood the difference between additive and subtractive colors. We were told about different combos of primary colors to make secondary colors and that all colors combined make white. It wasn't until high school that I got a good answer why combining paints of different color eventually ended up with an ugly brown instead of white.

[Anonymous No.11775383]

>>11774067
Based on our color receptors, it seems it would make more sense to split colors to red, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, turquoise, purple. But it seems our eyes are still kind of wired for the ancestral four cones, so first yellow gets recreated into the leftover channel, which makes it seem more prominent than it would be otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11775392]

>>11774067
Based on our color receptors, it seems it would make more sense to split colors to red, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, purple. But it seems our eyes are still kind of wired for the ancestral four cones, so first yellow gets recreated into the leftover channel before the colors are processed further, which makes yellow seem more prominent than it would be otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11775442]

>>11775139
die die die

[Anonymous No.11776098]

>>11775183
7 colors is dumb, there should be purple not indigo and violet

[Anonymous No.11776101]

>>11776098
>roybgp
in the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.11776135]

>>11776098
How can you look at this and only see 2 distinct tones?

[Anonymous No.11776350]

>>11776135
I see cyan, blue, and purple.

[Anonymous No.11776559]

>>11776135
Lol how can you post an image with a vertical line like this and describe it as a spectrum?
Retard.

[Anonymous No.11776582]

[Anonymous No.11776683]

>>11776559
>Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 10.53.36 PM.png
that picture is under multiple layers of color compression saved to a file format and viewed through a screen that both have an inherently limited color pallet.
Maybe if you weren't retarded and hadn't screenshotted it I could also talk about visual effects like halation, but this will do for now.

[Anonymous No.11776793]

>>11776683
>How can you look at this and only see 2 distinct tones?
I just told you why your image is shit, and you agree that your own image is shit, and yet you find a way to blame someone else for your own shit image? Lol fucking millennials.

[Anonymous No.11776877]

>>11775183
>In technology, though, we reduce the spectrum into 3 colors: red, blue and green, and generate all colors through a combination of those; I’m sure there is a scientific basis for this

Basically yes. It's actually a biological basis that was uncovered by science. Humans have three different kinds of photon detectors in our eyes. (excluding the rods) So all the NAMES of colors actually describe a human experience, not something in nature.

A single wavelength of light at 620 nm will stimulate the red and green cones in your eye, and thus appear yellow. A mix of wavelengths at 660 nm and 550 nm can be adjusted in relative power to stimulate your eyes in the exact same way. This mixture beam would have nothing in common with the 620 nm beam, but both are "yellow." A prism would separate the mixed beam back into red and green, but do nothing to the 620 nm beam.

[Anonymous No.11776894]

>>11776683
>that picture is under multiple layers of color compression saved to a file format and viewed through a screen that both have an inherently limited color pallet.

Okay, here is a better one. It's PNG, so it is lossless from my graphics editor.

[Anonymous No.11776976]

>>11776894
Zoom in on that shit and it's not lossless at all. Your spectrum is trash.

[Anonymous No.11778191]

>>11776976
purple lives matter