My proposed list: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black, and White was no longer than their list, it was no more difficult to understand than their list, and it is scien

My proposed list: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black, and White was no longer than their list, it was no more difficult to understand than their list, and it is scientifically sound. We have known for two centuries that the true primaries are Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow (for pigment), why continue to propagate false primaries (red, yellow, blue) that omit the ability to describe entire sections of the spectrum? The language is no less specific. Is there a difference between cyan and light blue? How about light cyan? Cyan = cyan light blue = (cyan + magenta) + white light cyan = cyan + white If you're starting with blue (cyan + magenta) you can't end up with only cyan and white by adding white to that. You have to remove the magenta. Yellow is a true primary, but both Red and Blue are already mixes between primaries While Yellow + Blue = Green, it's not as pure as the green made by cyan + yellow, because the blue + yellow green also includes magenta from the blue. When it's easy to see that the true primaries are CMY, why continue to propagate a centuries-old colour model that doesn't adequately describe the colours we see around us. I thought the point of this language was to break things down to their core, and combine ideas to come up with combintations. Yellow is fine, but both Blue and Red can be broken down further. There's still work to be done!