/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1977951]

Get it fucking right.

[Anonymous No.1977962]

i only though white was a colour

inb4 racism

[Anonymous No.1977964]

Black is a tone.
White is a tint.

Get it right.

[EK No.1977967]

black is the abscence of colour. white is all colours in the spectrum combined.
get it right.

[EK No.1977968]

>>1977967
*absense

[Anonymous No.1977972]

>>1977967

7/10 would wat again

[EK No.1977975]

>>1977972
...wat?

[OPTheQuestDrawFag No.1977990]

>>1977967
What color is the most co lours combined without being white?

[Anonymous No.1977991]

fuck off nigga

[EK No.1977993]

>>1977967

>color

[confusedbro !cW.KgUapNQ No.1978002]

I'm afraid OP is right. After careful consideration, I come to the same conclusion as him.

Taken at face value, it may seem correct. After all, we may make a seemingly reasonable analogy - silence is not a sound, it is the absence of sound.


However, when we take this further, can we say that absolute zero is not a temperature, it is the absence of temperature? 0 is not a number, it is the absence of a number? Clearly these are preposterous claims. So let us go back and investigate why the first two claims appear more reasonable.

If we say that colour is a measurement of intensity, then black will be a colour with an intensity of 0. Therefore black is a colour, it just has 0 intensity.

[OPTheQuestDrawFag No.1978001]

>>1977993
>He still calls light bouner-a-doos, "colors"

[EK No.1978009]

>>1977993
not american, sorry. so i say 'colour'
also, stop twoking my name and image, faggot!
don't make me go all tripfag on your asses!

[Anonymous No.1978012]

>>1977967
In painting and printing, black is the combination of all colors (CMYK) and white the absence of all color.

Also color motherfuckers, not colour... okay I jest, both are ok.

[Anonymous No.1978017]

>>1977967
OP here.

oh thnx for the explanation.

I though black means a deniel of colors.

Just like atheism is the deniel of god`s existence.

[EK No.1978035]

>>1978017
nope, you can't deny colours. you either see them or you don't.
>>1978012
the white paper is reflecting white light, by painting it black the paint now absorbs all the light, and doesn't reflect any, so in these regions you see no colour at all. same goes for printing.
notice in my image, that for white, it is composed of all the colours (red green and blue for pixels) at 255, which is maximum.
for black, it is on 0 for all of these. so no colour at all. so black is not a colour, it is no colour (which is why when you close your eyes to stop light/colour entering your eyes, all you see is blackness)

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978039]

>>1978017
"Atheism is the denial of being Human"

[EK No.1978042]

>>1978039
fuck off, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.1978054]

>>1978039

Have you wrote that yourself ? ?

i once made an OP with the exact same statement.

[EK No.1978053]

>>1978049

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978049]

>>1978042
"No"

[Anonymous No.1978052]

>>1978035
So you're saying black is not a colour because of how computers treat colours?

Next 3 is not a number because a computer only knows 0 and 1.

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978058]

>>1978054
I was quoting you. I thought it was you because you also claimed that Richard Dawkins and co browse this forum. This pic:
>>1978017
Gave it away :)

[EK No.1978063]

>>1978052
>Next 3 is not a number because a computer only knows 0 and 1.

[Anonymous No.1978067]

>>1978063
>He still uses windows XP

It's almost 2011, wake the fuck up. Also, you completely missed the point. The average computer does not know the number 3.

[EK No.1978084]

>>1978067
XP works fine thanx.

and ALL computers fucking know more numbers than 0 and 1.
R-tard.

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978095]

>>1978084

[Anonymous No.1978096]

>>1978084

[EK No.1978107]

... my calculator knows more numbers than 0 and 1
my calculator is a simple computer
my computer has a calculator function, as well as being able to do several other things.
QED, computers know more numbers than 0 and 1.

[Anonymous No.1978116]

>>1978107
Because I don't have more laughinghores.jpg

[Anonymous No.1978118]

black != a colour

white is colours.

[& !Lah92TarB2 No.1978119]

>>1978107
no it doesn't retard.. it reads everything as 0 and 1's.. regardless of what you put in there

[Anonymous No.1978126]

Jesus you guys are so stupid. It's spelled COLOR C-O-L-O-R. There is no U in color. Fucking morons.

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978129]

"Did it press 3?" "0/1"

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1978133]

"Did it press 00000011?" "0/1"

[Anonymous No.1978141]

>>1978126

Oh look it's someone who knows nothing about the English language.

[Anonymous No.1978148]

>>1978119
But by that logic, there are no such things as words, because they're just collections of letters.

And even HUMANS only know numbers from 0-9: the rest of the numbers are formed from combinations of these.

Also, black and white are obviously colors. Anything we see is a color. White is just a color which has maximum tint, black a color with maximum shade.

[Molybdenum !d2uO8BR0kk No.1978151]

>>1978084
Allow me /sci/, human society uses base 10 (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), Douglas Adams uses base 13 (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,Z,Y,X) and computers use base 2 (0,1)

[Anonymous No.1978155]

>>1978107
I <3 EK

[Anonymous No.1978180]

>>1978148
Learn to differentiate numbers and digits.

[Anonymous No.1978186]

>>1978151
most modern computers (x86) use base <span class="math">2^32[/spoiler]
your argument is invalid

[Anonymous No.1978193]

>>1978186
Lolwut?

[Anonymous No.1978194]

>>1978151
ZYX?

It's ABC, faggort.

[Anonymous No.1978196]

>>1978151
most modern computers (x86 architecture) use base <span class="math">2^{32}[/spoiler]
your argument is invalid

[Anonymous No.1978200]

>>1978180
Note that I was saying "by that logic". I was proving a point. Lern2sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.1978207]

>>1978196
Again, lolwut<span class="math">^{32}[/spoiler]?

[Anonymous No.1978212]

>>1977967
Black absorbs all light in the VISIBLE spectrum.

Also, I think it is essential to define what we mean by color/colour :

- if it is defined as being a particular superposition of EM waves reflected by the object, then black is the configuration where the intensity of all the reflected EM waves in the visible spectrum is zero. Therefore, black is a color.

- if it is defined as being a certain wavelength of the visible spectrum, then black is the absence of color.

I would argue that this discussion falls more in the realm of philosophy than in the realm of science.

tl;dr : black = color or absence of color; it depends on your definition of color.

[Anonymous No.1978219]

>>1978212
THANK YOU. I'm glad someone gets it.

[EK No.1978230]

>>1978116
fuck you.
>>1978151
yeh i know fundamentally that electronics works in binary, but saying that a computer 'doesn't know 3' is misleading. what to you mean by 'know'? can a computer really 'know' anything.
if it can, and i program one to work in decimal (0-9) then i can argue that it does 'know' 3, even though deep down in the electronics of it, it is working it all out in binary.
>>1978148
>Anything we see is a color.
yes, but black is not something you are seeing, it is light which is blocked out, like something overshadowing your eye, blocking light, you will see a black silhouette instead of light, because no photons are hitting your retina in this region, so no colour, so you see black.
>>1978155
aww, thanks hun ;)
>>1978180
LRN-2-ANALOGY, fucktard.

[Anonymous No.1978245]

>>1978207
learn2program, fag

[Anonymous No.1978266]

>>1978230
Again, it depends on how you define color. Sagan there described what most people would define as a color: a particular combination of EM waves. Note that a lack of EM waves is a valid combination. similar to the fact that 0 is a number. We don't say "0 is not a number because it lacks a value".

If you view color as the PRESENCE of EM waves, then black is a lack of color.

Don't mean any disrespect, by the way, I'm just talking.

[Anonymous No.1978281]

>>1978245
> mfw I'm a software engineer at Intel

[EK No.1978282]

>>1978266
as far as i see it, if photons are being detected by [you're/you are] retina, then you are seeing colour. if [their/they're] are no photons being detected, you are not seeing colour, but you will visualise it as blackness.

[Anonymous No.1978285]

>>1978282
Ah. So the distinction lies in what our eyes receive and what we visualize. Nice way of putting it.

[Anonymous No.1978291]

>>1978281
>mfw intel hires retarded people

[Anonymous No.1978310]

>>1978291
Ok, fine, I thought you were trolling, but now I'm starting to think you're actually that stupid.

> Computers use bits to represent digits. A common data type uses 32 bits, so computers use base 2^32 numbers.
> Humans use 0-9 to represent digits. We can use any number of digits. Therefore, we use base INFINITY
>trollface.jpg

Problem, math?

P.S. Computers can represent numbers of any size, not just 0 to <span class="math">(2^{32} - 1)[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.1978329]

>>1978291
Intel has the best processors you arrogant neckbeard

[Anonymous No.1978335]

>>1978329
I'm the one who works at Intel, and I wouldn't necessarily say that's always true... But they do have some smart people, I don't know where the troll there is getting his facts. Probably just butthurt.

[Anonymous No.1978336]

>>1978310
>processors don't have commands to operate with single bits. You cannot even read a bit from memory.
>computers operate with 32bit integers just like humans operate with digits: add (storing the carry flag), multiply (giving high and low 32 bits), etc
problem, fag?

[sage No.1978353]

>>1978336
Computers operate on 32 bits at once because it's more efficient. Conceptually, they're still arrays of 0's and 1's (digits). And internally, an adder circuit is adding those digits, just how we add digits.

Also, you can access 8 bits at a time... And access an individual bit using masking.

By the way, SOME machines actually use base 3, although it's rare. They use 0, 1, and 2, instead of only 0 and 1.

[Anonymous No.1978366]

>>1978353
fucking wrong again
there was a computer that used base 3 and the digits were 0,1 and -1. good for inverting a number and fucking gay for everything else

try using digits you cannot read or operate with some time.

[Anonymous No.1978368]

>>1978336
My processor uses base <span class="math">2^{64}[/spoiler], u jelly?

[Anonymous No.1978375]

>>1978366
Physically, they're -1, 0, 1. Conceptually, they're 0, 1, 2. Go back to your CS 101 class and GTFO /sci/.

[Anonymous No.1978384]

>>1978375
Conceptually, they're 0, 1, -1
Physically, they're DIGIT1, DIGIT2, DIGIT3
u mad and wrong again

[Anonymous No.1978396]

>>1978375
Ones and zeros relates to voltage and zero voltage
negative voltage just drops out as the third plausible value to use, does it not?

[Anonymous No.1978400]

>>1978384
Physically, they're different voltage ranges. Conceptually they're 3 different digit values.
Counting in ternary would go like this:
0
1
1(-1)
10
11
1(-1)(-1)
1(-1)0
1(-1)1

etc.

[Anonymous No.1978412]

>>1978396
googled for more information, those computers (Setun) actually used 2 bits for storing a ternary digit. Fourth value (1,1) wasn't used.

[Anonymous No.1978426]

>>1978412
Heh, didn't know that. I always figured ternary computers couldn't get as fast, anyway; there are some severe physical limitations with attempting to represent three ranges.

[Anonymous No.1978433]

>>1978412 add:

>>1978400
means that >>1978375 makes no sense. Conceptually there is a digit with value 0, a digit with value 1, and a digit with value -1.

Physically, they are represented as (0,0), (0,1), (1,0)

[Anonymous No.1978446]

>mfw retards think computers "know" numbers instead of operating by an on or off system in the circuitry

[Anonymous No.1978453]

>>1978446
I'm not saying they know numbers. I'm saying they store and operate on numbers. Which are base 2.