# Talk:Pentachromacy

WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Untitled

I have reverted the change user:Smack made to the intro of this page - I'm afraid it was quite seriously wrong. Animals with colour vision do not "divide up the specturm"; the colour seen is a function of the relative levels of activation of the different classes of receptors, and shows continuity from one colour to another. seglea 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but even though I already knew the concept of "chromacy", I found the introduction confusing. Do you expect people to know what a "pure spectral light" or "spectral light" is? Also, since you reverted my disambiguation, please find a better page to link to than the mess that is spectrum. --Smack (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that what is there, though technically correct, is not easy to read. Also I agree that your electromagnetic spectrum is probably better than spectrum - I didn't have time to do more than a quick revert but will get to it as soon as i can. seglea 12:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed "exponentially" to "multaplicatively". This is because when combining the 100 gradations from one sensor with the 100 gradations from a second sensor, the number of gradations is multiplied, to get 10,000. It is a mere coincidence that this is equal to the exponential formula 100^2. If one cell detected 20 gradations and the other 500, it would still be multaplicative (20 x 500 = 10,000), but there would be no corresponding exponential formula. The term "exponentially" is a "cool" technical term in mathematics that people like throwing around even when not correct, just like people say that something is ironic (a technical literary term) even when it is not ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.0.245 (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made some factual corrections. Three colors of light are not enough to simulate all the colors that an average human can distinguish, so it does not make sense that a pentachromat would be completely satisfied with five varieties of light. See the article on color perception. For example, if you take pure red, green, and blue, then you cannot represent a monochromatic cyan — mixing green and blue would yield a less intense color, according to human eyes. Some output devices (especially printers) use more than three colors, often as much as six, to more closely match what the human eye can distinguish. Also, the three human cones are called "long", "medium", and "short", not "red", "green", and "blue". Each is sensitive to a wide variety of wavelengths that overlap with the others significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.0.245 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)