Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 54: |
Line 54: |
| | | |
| [[User:Hakr14|Hakr14]] ([[User talk:Hakr14|talk]]) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC) | | [[User:Hakr14|Hakr14]] ([[User talk:Hakr14|talk]]) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
− | :Just to explain to the people that aren't engineers, physicists, or mathematicians; while "the three dimensions" are commonly thought of as height/width/depth, with time often used as the 4th dimension, there is nothing that requires "dimensions" to refer to those properties. For example: a flat plane with a temperature distribution could be said to have three dimensions (height/width/temperature), or a cube could be said to have four (height/width/depth/temperature)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.100|108.162.237.100]] 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
| + | |
− | ::Much better in this context: Red/Green/Blue (RGB) is known by everybody as the basis to represent color mixtures, the fourth dimension is simply the brightness. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
| |
| | | |
| Isn't the title text a reference to [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872 that pretty old Chromium bug]? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.4|162.158.22.4]] 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC) | | Isn't the title text a reference to [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872 that pretty old Chromium bug]? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.4|162.158.22.4]] 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
Line 73: |
Line 72: |
| | | |
| There is no mention of the RGB/RYB/CYMK issue in the explenation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211|162.158.111.211]] 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) | | There is no mention of the RGB/RYB/CYMK issue in the explenation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211|162.158.111.211]] 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |
− |
| |
− | What if, what you see as blue when you look at the sky in real life, I see as a slightly different blue, because the different web browsers we've been using have retrained our eyes to perceive meatspace differently? [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ----
| |
− |
| |
− | For what it's worth, the most natural way to describe color exactly is as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Each pure frequency is a dimension, so a color is a vector with |R|-many elements, each representing the intensity of a different frequency. The inner product induces a norm that represents the brightness of the color. The sensitivities of the cone cells are basically encoded in the definition of the inner product.
| |
− | [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.59|108.162.237.59]] 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Depends on what you mean by ''color''. I don't think eyes (or digital sensors) can perceive an '''infinite''' range of frequencies. Referring to high-energy gamma rays as "colors" and then trying to distinguish between colors based on their energy difference would be to distort the meaning of the term. Same for radio at the other end. Even in the visual range, can the eye distinguish between 660nm and 660.1nm light? I very much doubt it. In any practical sense, then, there are not "infinite" colors. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::I'm not sure what the qualification is for "colour", but if it's based upon a particular sensing creature/aparatus, then there is a degree of finiteness tied to how many chromatic detection ranges it employs (and the response curve each is informed by, and then further by the perception resolution of the near neighbouring frequencies). It could be quite tight, and it would be fully calculable if it involved digital encoding (less sure in analogue scenarios and, e.g., human vision is tricksy... as can be seen in the {{w|Checker shadow illusion}}, and similar) so properly finite. Even for a given {{w|Hyperspectral imaging|hyperspectral camera}}.
| |
− | ::But if you want to cover [i]any[/i] observation(/-device) that can be made then you're effectively unbounded by the possibilities of 'spectral resolution'. Can your eye differentiate between 660nm and 660.1nm? Probably not. But you cannot say that no eye does (and we can and do build sensors that would do so).
| |
− | ::Possibly physical laws intervene at one point though. Effectively a "Planck spectral-separation", as the limited number of elements compounded into a (very large but still finite...ish) number of receptive materials, setting an upper bound of direct response to bits of any spectra. Or, if prism-split and projected, the limit to which the resulting smear of rainbow light can be spread out and then having the limit of assessing a thin enough wedge of it. But, with always the possibility of finding a trick to go beyond the current level chromatic differentiation (applying an oscillating reflector, LIGO-like, to alternate the very slightest red-/blue-shifts back and forth across the existing threshold in a detectable way?), its as near as dammit an infinitely detailed continuum, probably even beyond what useful detail might be usefully presented by the otherwise sane bit of the universe that is blithely transmitting whatever light we are so interested in receiving for analysis. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.140|172.71.242.140]] 16:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
| |