4 ms·

Magenta have not a electromagnetic frecuency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FSpCAs5KZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FSpCAs5KZg

mdp2021 4y ago
It is the sum of two ranges (magenta is the sum of red and blue lights): it also exists "outside", like the rest. For that matter, not even "pinkish grey" is defined by simply a frequency (the hue is, the colour is not): the definition for this purpose was meant to be concise, not literal.
- laserlight 4y ago
  Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample. Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition. For an example, see impossible colors [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample That was not the point, and said counterexample is not such (also magenta is, in a way, "electromagnetic frequenc[ies]"). Impossible colours - virtual colours - do go more towards the counterexample, though up to a certain point as they refer to the mental phenomenon of colour and leave the physical nature of colour untouched. But finally I get what you meant when you stated: «not all colors are electromagnetic frequencies». True ("not all perception is produced by a direct influx of"). But also false, apparently (to the best of my), as objectivized hybrid colours are compositions of electromagnetic ranges; objectivized virtual colours are as well etc. > Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition Yes, and nobody ever stated the opposite - no reduction was never implied, no «overlapping» (as written in the other post): the point was expressed, nearby, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217999

mdp2021 4y ago

It is the sum of two ranges (magenta is the sum of red and blue lights): it also exists "outside", like the rest. For that matter, not even "pinkish grey" is defined by simply a frequency (the hue is, the colour is not): the definition for this purpose was meant to be concise, not literal.

laserlight 4y ago
Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample. Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition. For an example, see impossible colors [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Your previous comment had stated that hues are electromagnetic frequency and parent comment showed a counterexample That was not the point, and said counterexample is not such (also magenta is, in a way, "electromagnetic frequenc[ies]"). Impossible colours - virtual colours - do go more towards the counterexample, though up to a certain point as they refer to the mental phenomenon of colour and leave the physical nature of colour untouched. But finally I get what you meant when you stated: «not all colors are electromagnetic frequencies». True ("not all perception is produced by a direct influx of"). But also false, apparently (to the best of my), as objectivized hybrid colours are compositions of electromagnetic ranges; objectivized virtual colours are as well etc. > Color is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to electromagnetic frequencies and their composition Yes, and nobody ever stated the opposite - no reduction was never implied, no «overlapping» (as written in the other post): the point was expressed, nearby, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217999