a
: a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects
b
(1)
: the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation (see SATURATION sense 4) for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources
Pink isn’t real. There is no wavelength of light that is pink.
Its bright red, maybe toward purple! Brown is dark orange.
Light frequencies between blue and red don’t exist.
This person colors
Clearly, it’s light-ish red.
Pink is real, or you couldn’t see it. And you couldn’t see it unless light was bringing it to your eyes.
For pink light to be perceived, it needs red cones to fully react, and both green and blue cones to only partially activate.
https://gizmodo.com/if-the-color-pink-doesnt-scientifically-exist-why-can-1464266788
The definition of color from Merriam/Webster.
a : a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation (see SATURATION sense 4) for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources
Wavelength of green light = 550nm
Wavelength of pink light = N/A
I guess we disagree.
I stand with Merriam/Websters definition of color. You are using a different definition.
There is no disagreement. Merriam/Websters definition of color is not scientific. Science says pink light doesn’t exist.