MagentAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I'm not understanding this imaginary image concept
magenta does have a specific wavelength right?

>magenta does have a specific wavelength right?
No, it doesn't. Here's the spectrum:
Invisible Invisible
There's nothing visible at a lower wavelength than red or a higher wavelength than violet, but magenta is the imaginary representation of what it would be like if red and violet were next to each other and red could gradually become more violet-like or violet could gradually become more red-like.
Red and violet wavelengths together don't count as "a specific wavelength" for magenta because they're red and violet, not magenta. It's like if you had an imaginary number that was in between 1 and 7 yet also less than 1 and greater than 7. And this number is something you perceived when instances of 1 object and 7 objects were stacked on top of each other.

then our brains are making up this colour magenta?
so red has some long wavelength and violet has some short wavelength
You percieve both at the same time but it's not an average of both of them, so what is it? What is it analogous to mathematically?

>What is it analogous to mathematically?
This:
>It's like if you had an imaginary number that was in between 1 and 7 yet also less than 1 and greater than 7. And this number is something you perceived when instances of 1 object and 7 objects were stacked on top of each other.
It's like if you have a segment of the number line and you take the smallest number on the segment and the largest number on the segment and come up with a make believe number that was smaller than that smallest number yet larger than that largest number in a way that implied the segment was actually a closed loop.

It's probably some complicated neuroscience thing but it was hoping there was a relatively simple relationship
Like I understand the analogy of a colour wheel but what is literally going on?

K well wtf is that then? I'm not huge on this kind of math

On the biology side of things you have three types of cone cells in your eyes (except for some mutants who have four): red, green, and blue.
If red and blue cones are active but green isn't then you get magenta.
It's possible the explanation for why magenta is something you perceive as distinct from green is in part because you're not using any green cones when you see it and the creation of that distinct magenta color differentiates it from when you're looking at regular green and your green cones are active.

I don't understand what other kind of math you're looking for here. That's as straightforward an analogy as I can think of. It's a line, the ends don't really meet, but you can pretend the ends meet and come up with a make believe representation of the area directly in between those two ends were they connected to one another.

Ok thanks, so it's your brain percieving this unperceivable thing
So you know how people say "what if we all see colours differently?". What if we all see magenta differently because it's pretty much our brain trying to make sense of something alien?

that's not math man

It's this.

In reality nobody's "perceiving" anything. Perception is just a lower level involuntary abstraction for behavior and physiology.
What "magenta" is in this sense, what all colors are in this sense, is your behavior in response to similar types of stimuli. So there's not really any such thing as seeing magenta differently from someone else (except with cases like color blindness where you behave the same in response to magenta as you do in response to other colors).

Number lines and inequality operators (less than / greater than) definitely are math.
Again, what else are you looking for here exactly?

but you're not implying anything math related
you're just saying "imagine some next shit"
is there some kind of wavelength derived from the wavelengths of violet and red through some mathematical relationship that corresponds to magenta? If not then is our perception of magenta subjective?

>is there some kind of wavelength derived from the wavelengths of violet and red through some mathematical relationship that corresponds to magenta?
I don't think you understand what "mathematical" means.

K empirical then
is there some empirical relationship here?

There is no literal wavelength of visible light in between red and violet because like we covered earlier with the number line analogy, red is the lowest frequency visible wavelength and violet is the highest frequency visible wavelength, and having a wavelength that's lower frequency than red and also higher frequency than violet is impossible, in much the same way a number both less than 1 and greater than 7 would be impossible.
But just because there's no literal wavelength in lower than red and higher than violet at the same time doesn't mean we can't have abstract representations of the concept of something that meets those criteria, hence magenta.
It's a consequence of A) having abstracted representations of wavelengths of visible light and B) having a concept of "in between" for these representations. The "in between" concept maps to something real for other colors but doesn't map to something real for the case of lower frequency than red yet higher frequency than violet. So the concept of "in between" keeps working anyway and gives you a behavioral response suggesting a representation of something that doesn't literally exist.

I had a shitty $10 webcam from walmart that picked up infrared light and would display it as a whitish pale bluepurple kind of color on the monitor. I guess some nongs even figured out how to make color nightvision cameras that can also see infrared and ultraviolet if not explicitly using them to lighten the image. Really bizarre shit, these new nightvision cameras make midnight look like daylight and has a real bizarre effect when the black night sky is in the shot as well.

youtu.be/8bTgG2Ft4xQ

so magenta is just your brain making shit up?
like pistachio ice cream
or other such phenomena

that means there is some empirical relationship, it's just ridiculously complicated neuroscience stuff

For what it's worth, a rainbow displays colors from red to violet and prwsumably IR and UV as well, but in a double banded rainbow, the inner band is mirrored from the outer band, so from the outside in its BGYOR, invisible layer, ROYGB, where the invisible band in the middle makes it look like two separate rainbows.
Judging by how thin of a band each color represents while the invisible section makes up like 4 times the entire distance of either visible soectrum, there's actually a huge amount of possible infrared colors.

Yeah infinitely many
colours are just wavelengths and wavelength is an element of the reals (ie. not quantized)

>ridiculously complicated neuroscience stuff
It's not complicated though. You only have three types of cone cells in your eyes, and magenta is the concept of "red and blue cones but not green cones."
"Qualia" aren't real, it's mostly just a behavioral issue. You behave differently in response to what you call "magenta" compared to how you behave in response to what you call "green," and part of that behavior involves notions of different representations like those two being closer or farther apart from each other.

...

It's a shade of orange fag

lol no it's not, your brain creates brown whenever multiple wavelengths are together because it can't comprehend it otherwise. Brown literally does not exist.