I’ve been arguing with my friend(s) how I perceive clear as a color.
They said clear is not a color. While on the other hand, I said it is a color.
My friend(s)’ logic was: Colorless, a state of (insert object here) having no color. Thus, making their logic, logical. It is like comparing having something vs. not having something.
Here is my logic: When a state of having no color is being labeled as colorless or clear, doesn’t it have clear as a color? I used this analogy:
0 = clear/colorless; 1 = a color say, green …..
0 is a number. So is the number 1. But, 0 has no value unlike 1. If you look at it this way, it makes sense to say that 0 is a number making it a color, when value = visibility of a color; and numbers = set of colors or existence. Thus, it is proven that 0 and 1 are numbers, but 0 has no value unlike 1.
So, I’ve been searching and searching and searching….. Collected all the answers online, played with photoshop, and came to a conclusion.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank Google for being an excellent search engine, and several websites which I am too lazy to quote.
The question is: Is clear a color?
By dictionary and thesaurus, it is not a color because light can’t reflect it.
However, there is an explanation.
Clear is used to measure a color’s opacity. But a clear object can still have color(s). An example, nail polish. It has clear as an option on top of other color options.
Why is that?
Clear is used to decrease opacity of a color.
Clear/colorless coexists with colors. Even if you see a red object, there is still a clear pigment on it unless that red object is 100% opaque.
This can make a good conclusion to my number analogy:
0 can be used to increase a value of a number: 100, 10000, 1000000, etc. But as the number(s) is/are increasing by adding the number 0, opacity decreases.
This makes more sense although I have a few more examples in mind. But it’s a quarter past four in the morning. So…. Yeah…..
Thanks for reading.
P/S: I memorized all 20 amino acids while thinking about this. LOL.