Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
Series

Light — the series

71 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. Four standard illuminants, and how little they have in common. Spectral power distributions for A, D50, D65, E, on one scale. Illuminant A rises steeply toward the red; the daylight illuminants carry the atmosphere's absorption structure; E is flat by definition. All four are ordinarily called white.

    A spectrum is not a colour

    What arrives at the eye is a function of wavelength. What the eye reports is three numbers. Keeping the two apart is the single most useful habit in the subject, and almost every confusion in applied colour comes from letting them merge.

    part 1 · light
  2. Blackbody spectra from Planck's law, 2000 to 10000 K. Each curve is computed from Planck's law and normalised to its own peak. The peak moves toward shorter wavelengths as temperature rises. Only two of these radiators peak inside the visible band at all — a 2000 K source peaks at 1449 nm, far into the infrared, and merely rises toward the red across everything shown here.

    Blackbody and the colour of temperature

    Heat something and it glows, in a colour fixed by its temperature alone. Planck's law gives the whole spectrum from one number, and the Planckian locus is the only curve in colour science derived from physics rather than from measurements of people.

    part 2 · light
  3. One reflectance, two illuminants, two colours. A reflectance peaking near 610 nm, and the colours it produces under D65 and A. The object has not changed. The light has, and colour is a property of the pair.

    The illuminant is half the answer

    An object has a reflectance, not a colour. The colour appears when a specified light falls on it, which is why two surfaces can match in a shop and clash outside, and why every serious matching standard names the light.

    part 2 · light
  4. triphosphor fluorescent — three narrow phosphors plus the mercury lines, and the white it produces. The spectral power distribution of a triphosphor source, normalised to its own peak, and the colour a perfect white reflector takes under it: chromaticity (0.3379, 0.3389), correlated colour temperature 5258 K at Duv -0.0035. The white looks ordinary. The spectrum producing it does not.

    A lamp is not a blackbody

    A fluorescent tube puts a third of its light into four mercury lines. A white LED is a blue spike with a hole beside it. Both are sold by a colour temperature, and a colour temperature says nothing about either.

    part 3 · light
  5. A sample with two reflectance curves, and neither below one. The apparent reflectance of an optically brightened sample, measured under D65 and A. It exceeds 1 — the shaded band — which no reflector can do: more light leaves at these wavelengths than arrives at them, because the sample absorbs in the violet and re-emits in the blue. And the two curves differ, so the sample has no single reflectance to store. The effect drawn here is a floor: most of the excitation band lies below 380 nm, outside the range computed here.

    Some paper is brighter than white

    The reflectance model assumes light leaving at a wavelength arrived at that wavelength. A fluorescent sample breaks the assumption, has no reflectance curve at all, and is in almost every sheet of white paper sold.

    part 3 · light
  6. Colour temperature, and the number nobody quotes beside it. The Planckian locus in the 1960 UCS diagram — the only diagram on which correlated colour temperature is well defined — with four sources and the perpendicular from each to its nearest point. The temperature is where the foot of the perpendicular lands; Duv is how long the perpendicular is. halophosphate sits 0.0246 off the locus at 4513 K, which is a visible green cast that its colour temperature does not mention.

    White is a region

    A lamp is not sold as a chromaticity. It is sold as 4000 K, and what that means is that its chromaticity fell inside a quadrangle — which two lamps can occupy at opposite corners, eleven ΔE00 apart. In a room with either of them, the same twelve surfaces differ by one unit.

    part 3 · light
  7. Luminous efficacy of a monochromatic source, under the 2° observer. Lumens per watt against wavelength. The curve is the luminous efficiency function scaled by 683, which is what luminous efficacy of radiation is — the 1979 redefinition of the candela fixed 555 nm at exactly 683 lm/W and everything else follows. Marked at 450 nm (26 lm/W), 500 nm (221 lm/W), 555 nm (683 lm/W), 600 nm (431 lm/W), 650 nm (73 lm/W). Under this observer the peak reaches 683 lm/W.

    What a lamp cannot give back

    Six hundred and eighty-three lumens per watt is not a measurement of anything. It is the definition of the candela, it is a ceiling no white light can approach, and the distance between a lamp and that ceiling is mostly the price of being able to see what colour things are.

    part 4 · light
  8. Mixtures of 2700 K and 6500 K, on the diagram colour temperature is defined on. Both sources are Planckian radiators, so both sit exactly on the locus. Every mixture of them lies on the straight line between them, because mixing is addition and chromaticity is a projection of it — and the locus is curved, so the line is a chord. The equal mixture sits -0.0064 off the locus at a correlated colour temperature of 3953 K: a light that is measurably pink, specified by a number that says nothing about it.

    Two lamps do not average

    Light adds, band by band, and every number a lamp is sold by is a projection of the sum rather than a sum of the projections. Two radiators sitting exactly on the Planckian locus mix into a light that is measurably pink; two poor lamps mix into a better one than either.

    part 4 · light
  9. A 100 hertz drive, and whether anybody sees it. 3 cycles of a 100 hertz drive at 100 per cent modulation. The number beside each is how far above the threshold for seen flicker its loudest harmonic sits: above one and a stationary observer sees the flutter, below it and only something moving does. Fusion is at 60 Hz at 100 cd/m², and moves 12.5 Hz for every decade of light.

    A lamp has a waveform

    A lamp modulating a thousand times a second is a hundred times past the frequency at which flicker fuses, and it is plainly visible — as a dotted trail, during any glance across the room. The reason is not a new measurement; it is the spatial contrast sensitivity function, arriving from an unfamiliar direction.

    part 4 · light
  10. Several sources on one scale. planck, led, narrowband, each normalised to its own peak and drawn on shared axes with the colour each produces beside it. Every one of these is sold as white light and every one is ordinarily described that way; what they have in common is a chromaticity, and very little else.

    A screen is a poor lamp

    A display's white is a light. Shone on a surface it renders colour worse than a fluorescent tube — and the wider the gamut, the worse it gets, because the narrow primaries that buy a large triangle are exactly the ones that leave holes in the spectrum.

    part 4 · light
  11. Dimmed to a fiftieth, three ways. Switching a lamp on and off faster than anyone can see scales the spectrum and changes nothing else, so its colour temperature is a horizontal line and its chromaticity moves by 7.3e-14 ΔE00 — exactly, to floating point. Reducing the drive current moves the die's peak and cools the junction, which moves the mixture: ΔE00 3.5 across the range. A filament has no spectrum of its own to move; it is a blackbody at whatever temperature the power leaves it at, and it falls 1672 K. Three methods, one instruction, three colours.

    Three ways to dim a lamp

    "Dimmed to ten per cent" names three different colours. Switching the lamp on and off faster than anybody can see changes the chromaticity by nothing at all — exactly, to floating point. Reducing the current moves it a few units. Reducing the power to a filament moves it eighteen hundred kelvin down the Planckian locus, and stays on the locus exactly the whole way.

    part 4 · light
  12. Colour temperature, and the number nobody quotes beside it. The Planckian locus in the 1960 UCS diagram — the only diagram on which correlated colour temperature is well defined — with four sources and the perpendicular from each to its nearest point. The temperature is where the foot of the perpendicular lands; Duv is how long the perpendicular is. halophosphate sits 0.0246 off the locus at 4513 K, which is a visible green cast that its colour temperature does not mention.

    The sun is not one illuminant

    Daylight is not a blackbody and is not one spectrum. It is a one-parameter family reconstructed from three measured basis functions, its chromaticities lie on a curve that is near the Planckian locus and not on it, and the difference is the reason a colour temperature needs a second number beside it.

    part 5 · light
  13. D65, and a source built to have its chromaticity and nothing else. The smooth curve is the CIE's daylight reconstruction at 6504 K. The other is five Gaussian emission bands whose weights were solved so that the two agree in chromaticity to 8.5e-10 — closer than any instrument could tell them apart when looking at the lamps. Three numbers were matched and seventy-eight were not, and everything either source falls on will report the difference.

    There is no D65 lamp

    D65 is standardised by three numbers, and three numbers do not pin a spectrum. A source built to hit them exactly — matched to a part in a billion, with a third of the visible band nearly empty — separates pairs that D65 says are identical by up to eight and a half units of colour difference.

    part 5 · light
  14. The colour of a beam, against the angle it leaves at. A conformal converter — an even layer laid straight onto the die — makes light leaving at θ cross 1/cos θ times as much of it, so it is more completely converted and the beam is warmer at its edge. From the axis to 75° the correlated colour temperature falls by 556 K and the whole difference is ΔE00 16.4. The flat line is the same emitters under a dome, whose path length is the same in every direction by construction: no angular colour at all, exactly, which is what a remote converter is sold for.

    A lamp has a direction

    A white LED is a blue die under a converter, and light leaving at an angle has travelled further through the converter than light leaving straight up. So the mixture is different in every direction, the beam is bluer in the middle than at its edge, and the number on the box is one direction's worth of a device that has no single colour.

    part 5 · light
  15. A lamp switched on, and what it is still doing minutes later. The junction warms from ambient to 80 °C with a time constant of 150 seconds, and three quoted slopes act as it does: the die's peak moves, the die loses efficiency, and the converter loses quantum yield. The output falls 25 per cent and the colour moves ΔE00 2.6. Nine tenths of the way takes 405 seconds. The vertical mark is the eye's own slow adaptation constant, 60 seconds, for scale.

    A lamp switched on is not the lamp measured

    A luminaire takes about seven minutes to reach nine tenths of its working temperature, loses a quarter of its output on the way, and moves ΔE00 2.6 while it does. That is slower than every clock in the eye — so for the first minutes after a switch is thrown, both ends of the measurement are moving, and every appearance claim here has assumed one of them was still.

    part 5 · light
  16. A surface in a room, from the moment the light goes on. How far a blue surface is from the colour it will settle at, second by second, for an observer who walked in from the snow as the lamp was switched on. It starts ΔE00 27 away, is still 6.1 away after a minute — the point at which the eye is conventionally said to have adapted — and does not fall under a unit until 295 seconds.

    The room settles after the eye does

    Four clocks run in a room and only three of them are in the observer. The slowest is the lamp, which takes four hundred seconds to reach nine tenths of its colour change — so a minute after the light goes on, when the eye is conventionally said to have settled, most of what is left is the lamp, and three quarters of that could not be adapted away by an observer of any speed.

    part 6 · light
  17. A colour rendering index, computed for everybody instead of for one observer. Each bar spans what 120 eyes make of one lamp: the same reflectances, the same reference illuminant, the same arithmetic, different colour-matching functions. The mark is the standard observer's own answer, which is the number printed on the box. One lamp's spread is 3.8 points wide while the whole range the standard observer puts these lamps in is 1.8 — so a ranking quoted to a tenth of a point is a statement about one set of tables. Two of the marks fall outside the population's range entirely.

    The index is one observer's opinion

    A colour rendering index is printed to a tenth of a point and computed for a single set of colour-matching functions that no standard names as a choice. Scored by two hundred eyes instead, one lamp's spread is wider than the whole range the standard observer puts five lamps in — and two lamps the standard separates by four tenths of a point come out the other way round for every member of the population.

    part 6 · light
  18. A fluorescent sample is a matrix, and a reflectance is only its diagonal. The Donaldson matrix of a brightened sheet: how much light leaves at each wavelength for light arriving at each wavelength. A reflecting surface has entries on the diagonal and nowhere else, which is exactly the statement that light leaving at 440 nanometres arrived at 440. The block off the diagonal is the fluorophore — it takes light between about 305 and 420 nanometres and returns it between 400 and 500, wherever in that band it was absorbed, which is why the block is a rectangle rather than a smear along the diagonal. A spectrophotometer that reports a reflectance is reporting the diagonal and folding the block into it at whatever weight its own lamp happened to give.

    A reflectance is a diagonal

    A reflecting surface returns light at the wavelength it arrived at, so its whole description is one number per wavelength. A fluorescent one returns it somewhere else, so its description is a square matrix — and the curve every instrument reports is that matrix's diagonal with the rest of it folded in at whatever weight the lamp happened to give.

    part 6 · light
  19. The same census, sorted by where the change of light came from. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by where the change came from. The two kinds of light that existed before electricity sit at the top and leave the smallest share of themselves behind; the discharge lamps are worse, and the worst of them is d65 to a triphosphor tube at 33 per cent.

    Which lamp changes are free

    The changes of light that existed before electricity commute with one another to a couple of parts in a thousand, so one set of axes handles all of them. The lights the lighting industry invented do not, and the worst pair in the census is seventy-six times further from commuting than the best.

    part 7 · light
  20. Three ways to dim a lamp, and only one of them is free. What an adapted observer is left with, as the same lamp is taken down to one per cent by each of the three methods. Duty-cycle dimming lies exactly on zero at every depth: it scales the spectrum, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it. Current dimming moves the pump and the phosphor apart and leaves 0.15 at a tenth. A filament follows the Planckian locus, which is the largest chromaticity change of the three and leaves 3.63 — the ordering by chromaticity and the ordering by what a person sees are not the same ordering.

    Only one dimmer is invisible

    An earlier essay separated the three ways to dim a lamp by the chromaticity each arrives at. Asked instead what an adapted observer is left with, the ordering is different and one method comes out at exactly zero — a duty cycle is a scaling, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it at every depth.

    part 7 · light
  21. Six functions of wavelength, and the six different places they stop. Every table this collection integrates against, drawn over the range the body that published it defined it on. The scale is logarithmic so that the ultraviolet and the near infrared both fit. The bottom row is the range used here before the infrared band was added, and it is the intersection of the two rows that matter for an eye looking at a reflector — which is the right answer only while everything in the integral is being multiplied together. The daylight basis runs 80 nanometres further down than that intersection, and it was published that way because the ultraviolet in daylight is what makes a brightened sheet of paper glow. The analytic row is drawn to the edge of the plot because it has no edge: Planck's law is a formula and is exact at every wavelength, which is why illuminant A needs no table at all.

    The tables do not stop together

    This collection integrates from 380 to 780 nanometres, and decided once, in writing, that the range could not honestly be widened. The argument was correct at the long end and wrong at the short one — the CIE publishes the daylight basis from 300 nanometres, and publishes it from there for exactly the reason it matters.

    part 8 · light
  22. An instrument, as the only thing it really is. The 3 filters a bank of that size puts across the visible range, each drawn against wavelength. Everything the instrument can report about a spectrum is 3 numbers — the integral of the light against each of these — so the set of spectra it cannot tell apart is everything orthogonal to all 3 of them, which is 78 dimensions of the 81 this site works in. Three of these is a colorimeter in spirit; the eye is three of them too.

    Three numbers cannot see a line

    An instrument that returns three filtered readings of a spectrum determines a three-dimensional projection of it and is exactly blind to the other seventy-eight. On daylight that costs almost nothing; on a fluorescent tube, three quarters of the lamp lies in the part no reading reaches, and adding filters recovers it slowly.

    part 9 · light
  23. The colour is right long before the spectrum is. The colour error of the projection, against the number of readings. At twelve readings the fluorescent tube's colour is right to 0.48 ΔE00 while 66% of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That is the trap in one line: a reconstruction good enough to pass any colorimetric check will predict a match under a second illuminant that does not happen, because the part it got wrong is exactly the part a different lamp weights differently.

    The colour is right first

    A reconstruction of a lamp from twelve filtered readings gets its colour right to half a unit while two thirds of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That combination is not a partial success — it is the exact condition under which a spectral prediction made from the reconstruction will be confidently wrong.

    part 9 · light
  24. The winner survives the census's own construction; the middle of it does not. One row per perturbation of a constant the adaptation census is built from — the imaginary wall's centre wavelength, its width, its depth, its base, the macular filter's density and the two lens ages — each moved by an amount plausible for that quantity in its own units, up and down, and then all of them together. Each row shows where the five published transforms rank under it. Bradford holds the first column in all 14 rows. The second and third columns, which the table as built separates by six parts in a thousand, change places in 2 of them — so that ordering was never a fact about the transforms.

    The census is a construction too

    Five of the fourteen changes of light this collection scores adaptation transforms against are not measurements of anything — they are a wall somebody invented, at a wavelength somebody chose. Moving those constants by amounts plausible in their own units moves the mean residual by two fifths and never changes which transform wins.

    part 9 · light
  25. Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by.

    Which changes of light pay for it

    A fitted adaptation basis beats the receptors by 0.68 units on average, and an average is a poor description of what it does. On six of fourteen changes of light it is worse, and the whole of its advantage comes from four — a tungsten lamp and three coloured walls.

    part 10 · light
  26. Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by.

    Everyone is beaten by the same wall

    Eight candidate adaptation bases, fourteen changes of light, and seven of the eight have their worst row in the same place — not a lamp, but a green wall reflecting twice. The one that does not is the one that was fitted, and what its fit bought was permission to give up on that row.

    part 10 · light
  27. The family does have a worst case, at a band no pigment can cut. The worst change of light a painted wall can produce, at each band width, with the wall's centre wavelength, depth and base optimised at every point. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in the width. The curve rises as the band narrows, turns over at about 6.02 nanometres, and falls again — a band that narrow returns too little light to move the white much. The previous round's search reported no worst case because its box stopped at ten nanometres, marked, which is on the wrong side of the turn. The peak is 28.54 ΔE00 against 28.38 at that floor, which is 0.6 per cent higher: wrong in principle, right in practice to a fraction of a per cent.

    A notch a pigment cannot cut

    The worst change of light a painted room can produce has no maximum inside the box the search was given, which the previous round reported as a family with no worst case. Bounded by what a molecule can actually do, it has one — at a band six nanometres wide, narrower than any pigment and narrower than the box.

    part 10 · light
  28. Which steps of the census ranking the test set actually resolves. A horizontal bar for each of the 13 adjacent pairs in the census's ranking, from the smallest mean residual to the largest. A bar's length is the gap between the two rows in ΔE₀₀; the whisker on its end is twice the standard error of that gap, computed as a paired difference because the same 125 surfaces score both rows. Where the whisker reaches back past zero the pair is not ordered by this test set, and 4 of the 13 are in that state — marked. The largest steps, at the two ends of the ranking, are twenty standard errors wide and are not in doubt at all. The smallest is four parts in ten thousand between two rows the table prints as different numbers.

    Four steps the test set cannot order

    The adaptation census prints fourteen numbers to four figures and its ranking is asked to say which lamps adaptation handles worst. Nine of its thirteen steps are established beyond any doubt the test set can raise; the other four are not, and three of them are consecutive — a tungsten lamp, a halogen lamp and a white LED are simply not ordered.

    part 11 · light
  29. Which fourth dimensions are expensive, and how fine is too fine to matter. Two curves on axes of how many half-cycles a cosine fourth basis function makes across the visible band, against what it costs the matrix theorem in ΔE₀₀, at a fixed ten per cent amplitude. Both curves touch zero at exactly one and two half-cycles: those are the family's own second and third basis functions, so a fourth coefficient along them adds no dimension and a change of light stays exactly a matrix. Between them the cost climbs, reaches a maximum, and — for the smooth source — falls away again, because structure finer than the scale on which three broad cone sensitivities differ integrates to nearly nothing. The two curves part company at the fine end. Under daylight-to-tungsten the cost has fallen by a factor of 2.2 from its peak; under daylight-to-a-triphosphor-tube it has barely fallen at all, because a source with three narrow emission lines has structure of its own at that scale for the surface's structure to beat against. The observer is identical in both curves.

    A fourth dimension has a shape

    How much a fourth reflectance dimension costs spans a factor of nine across four equally plausible shapes at one amplitude, and the expensive ones are not the shapes a variance figure would identify. The band that hurts is set by the illuminant rather than by the eye, which is why a triphosphor tube and a tungsten lamp disagree about it.

    part 11 · light
  30. The census as the surfaces stop being three-dimensional. A slope chart with three columns — a test set with no fourth reflectance dimension, one with a fourth dimension at ten per cent amplitude, and one at twenty — and a line per change of light. Almost every line rises: a surface with structure the observer's three channels cannot follow is a surface an adaptation gain handles worse. Two lines are drawn heavy. daylight to a three-primary display rises fastest, by 90 per cent, because a source made of three narrow lines is precisely the instrument that cannot see a fourth reflectance dimension. And daylight to a triphosphor tube falls — the only row that does — because a triphosphor tube already samples the spectrum at three places, so extra structure in the surface is partly averaged away rather than added. The order of the middle of the table is not the same at the two ends; the extremes do not move.

    The row a fourth dimension improves

    Giving the test surfaces one more degree of freedom makes almost every change of light harder for an adapted observer — but not all of them, and which one it helps depends entirely on what the extra dimension looks like. A triphosphor tube is improved by one shape and hurt more than anything else in the census by another.

    part 12 · light
  31. The adaptation census in six units, calibrated onto one scale. Each line is one of the fourteen changes of light in the adaptation census, drawn across the six units the results could have been published in. Every unit is multiplied by the single factor that best carries it onto ΔE2000 over a reference sample of surface pairs, so the vertical axis means the same thing in every column and a sloping line is a disagreement rather than a change of scale. The levels move by up to a factor of two. More to the point, the lines cross: ΔEok puts 10 of the 91 pairs of rows in the other order, and CAM16-UCS, the only appearance unit here, puts the fewest — 2.

    The census in six units

    Recomputing every change of light in the adaptation census under six colour-difference formulae, with the scale factor divided out, leaves a table whose levels move by up to a factor of three point seven. The rows that move most are the mild ones, which is the opposite of what a reader would guess and is a property of where each formula was fitted.

    part 12 · light
  32. A radiance factor, split into the part that was reflected and the part that was not. The two components of what leaves a coated press stock under M₁ — D50 including its ultraviolet. The lower band is the reflected component, which is what a reflectance curve means and is everything a reflectance-based model can hold. The band above it is light emitted at wavelengths it did not arrive at, and its total is decided by how much ultraviolet the source had rather than by anything about the sheet's colour. The line at one is the boundary a reflecting surface cannot cross; the sum reaches 1.15 at 430 nanometres.

    The ultraviolet is half the product

    A fluorescent sample's departure from the reflectance model is exactly proportional to the ultraviolet the lamp carries — to twelve figures, over a range that includes zero. It is the only one of the round's four departures that really is a product of two magnitudes, and the reason is a rule about how molecules relax rather than anything about arithmetic.

    part 12 · light
  33. Six functions of wavelength, and the six different places they stop. Every table this collection integrates against, drawn over the range the body that published it defined it on. The scale is logarithmic so that the ultraviolet and the near infrared both fit. The bottom row is the range used here before the infrared band was added, and it is the intersection of the two rows that matter for an eye looking at a reflector — which is the right answer only while everything in the integral is being multiplied together. The daylight basis runs 80 nanometres further down than that intersection, and it was published that way because the ultraviolet in daylight is what makes a brightened sheet of paper glow. The analytic row is drawn to the edge of the plot because it has no edge: Planck's law is a formula and is exact at every wavelength, which is why illuminant A needs no table at all.

    The grid is a range, not an index

    Three of the four departures in this round restore an argument the model dropped. The fourth does not — the 380-to-780-nanometre grid is the range of the one argument the model kept, chosen in the first weeks and never revisited. It costs 6.70 ΔE₀₀ on a coated printing paper, it is the cheapest of the four to fix, and it is the one still unfixed.

    part 12 · light
  34. a fluorescent tube, mercury lines on a phosphor bed, with a 5-nanometre grid marked on it. The light drawn at a fifth of a nanometre, with the 5-nanometre tabulation points marked beneath. 38 of the 53 points carry more than a twentieth of the peak. What a summation over those points computes is not an approximation to the area under this curve; on a spectrum with features narrower than the spacing it is a different quantity, and the difference depends on where the points fall rather than on how many there are.

    The index is a choice too

    Every colour in this collection is a sum over eighty-one numbers running from 380 to 780 nanometres in steps of five. That index is not a property of the eye, the light or the sample — it is a tabulation, and it holds three separable decisions that behave completely differently from one another.

    part 13 · light
  35. What an instrument's slit width does to a tabulated colour. The horizontal axis is the full width of a triangular slit, from zero — perfect point sampling — to twenty nanometres; the vertical is the distance from the true colour, logarithmic. For a smooth light the lines are flat: a slit narrower than any feature changes nothing. For a line spectrum they fall off a cliff at the left. Point-sampling a mercury line at five nanometres costs 1.26 ΔE₀₀ and integrating the same spectrum through a five-nanometre slit costs 0.014. A spectrometer does not sample a spectrum; it integrates one, and the blur everybody would remove if they could is what makes a five-nanometre table safe.

    The slit is what makes it legal

    Point-sampling a mercury line at five nanometres costs a colour difference of one unit, and a laser projector thirty-seven. Integrating the same spectrum through the five-nanometre slit every spectrometer already has costs 0.014 and 0.19. The blur anybody would remove if they could is what makes a coarse table honest.

    part 14 · light
  36. What three fill-in rules cost when a five-nanometre table is read at one. A five-nanometre table read at one nanometre by three rules — hold the value, straight lines, a cubic through four points — each compared with the same tenth-nanometre reference. The dashed rule is the answer obtained by summing the table as it stands, at 0.00000 ΔE₀₀. Two of the three interpolations are worse than not interpolating. That is not a paradox: the summation's error is already small because the normaliser cancels most of it, and an interpolator introduces a shape the original curve did not have, which the cancellation cannot touch. A finer grid is not more resolution when the table is not finer.

    A finer reading of a coarser table

    Interpolating a five-nanometre spectrum to one nanometre helps a daylight calculation by a factor of five and harms a three-emitter LED by a factor of a hundred and twenty thousand. Both are the same operation on the same table, and which one happens is decided by a property of the light nobody records.

    part 14 · light
  37. How much the answer moves when the 5-nanometre grid is slid through one cell. Each bar is the spread of one light's colour across five grid origins, all at the same 5-nanometre step, in ΔE₀₀. A smooth light barely moves, and what movement it has is the end cells rather than the sampling. The fluorescent tube moves by 3.18 units and the laser projector by 35.0, because their emission lines are narrower than the step and whether a sample lands on one is a coincidence of arithmetic. This is the measurement that separates a quadrature error from an aliasing error, and no average over origins can substitute for it.

    Where the grid starts

    Holding the step at five nanometres and sliding the grid's origin through one cell moves a fluorescent tube's computed colour by 3.18 ΔE₀₀ and a laser projector's by 35.0. Refining the step does not fix it and averaging over origins hides it. It is the one tabulation fault with no smooth error to cancel against.

    part 14 · light
  38. What each end of the 380–780 nanometre range costs, by light. Two bars per light, on a logarithmic axis: the upper is what extending the range down to 300 nanometres moves the answer, the lower what extending it up to 830 does. The asymmetry is the whole figure. A thermal source has about a fifth of its power outside this collection's range and almost all of it at the long end, where the observer is already zero; what costs money is the short end, where the observer is small but not zero and daylight is still strong. A light with no ultraviolet — an LED lamp, a laser — pays nothing at either end, which is the pairing again: a range only costs what the light puts in it.

    Two ends and one is empty

    Extending this collection's wavelength range down to 300 nanometres moves a red pigment under daylight by 0.502 ΔE₀₀. Extending it up to 830 moves the same colour by 0.00015. A fifth of a thermal source's power lies outside the range and almost none of its colour does, and confusing those two shares is how a range gets argued about instead of measured.

    part 14 · light
  39. The two tabulation choices over forty-two surfaces, under a 6500 K thermal radiator. Each column is one choice, measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances rather than on a single example: an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth. The four marks are the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest cost in ΔE₀₀, logarithmically. Under a smooth light the range is worth 9.1 times the step at the median, so a collection wanting one repair should widen its range rather than refine its step — and under a fluorescent tube the ranking reverses outright.

    Which end to buy

    Refining a five-nanometre grid to one buys a daylight calculation 0.05 ΔE₀₀ and widening its range buys 0.54. Under a fluorescent tube the same two purchases are worth 0.83 and 0.0001. The ranking reverses completely, and what decides it is one length compared against one other length.

    part 15 · light
  40. The rectangle sum against the trapezoid sum, under a 6500 K thermal radiator. Colorimetry's summation is the rectangle rule at the tabulated points. The trapezoid rule differs from it by exactly one thing — half a cell at each end of the range — and the gap between these two lines is therefore that term and nothing else. At five nanometres it is a factor of 14.3, which means the number everybody calls a sampling error is mostly a truncation error wearing the step's clothes. On a light whose lines are narrower than the step the two rules agree to three decimal places, because there the error really is the sampling.

    The endpoint term has a name

    The five-nanometre error on a smooth light falls linearly with the step, which is not what a sampling error does. It is the half-cell at each end of a truncated range, it is first order where the sampling is second, and halving two weights removes fourteen fifteenths of it for nothing.

    part 15 · light
  41. What a tabulation step costs, by light, on paper. The horizontal axis is the tabulation step in nanometres, from one to twenty; the vertical is how far the resulting colour is from the same integral taken at a tenth of a nanometre over the same range, in ΔE₀₀, on a logarithmic scale. Each line is one light. The three with no feature narrower than the step fall smoothly and stay below a tenth of a unit at five nanometres, which is the grid used throughout. The fluorescent tube and the laser projector do not fall at all: their lines are narrower than any step drawn here, so the answer depends on where the samples land rather than on how many there are. The sample is held at paper throughout.

    A grid is not a resolution

    Ten essays into this collection there is one sentence about wavelength sampling, and it is that five nanometres is enough. Ten measurements later there are three decisions, three mechanisms, three repairs and two rankings, and the word resolution names none of them.

    part 15 · light
  42. The share of each light outside 380–780 nanometres, as power and as visual product. Two measurements of the same truncation. The upper bar is the fraction of the light's radiant power that lies outside the range; the lower is the fraction of the product of light, sample and observer — which is what a colour is made of. A thermal radiator puts a fifth of its power outside and about a thousandth of its colour, because the observer is zero where most of that power is. The gap between the two bars is the observer's own tails doing their job, and reading the upper number as though it were the lower is how a range gets argued about without being measured.

    A lamp is two audits at once

    A lamp's ultraviolet content decides what its tabulation costs and its blue content decides what its observer costs, and the two run in opposite directions with colour temperature. So no lamp is good for both audits and no lamp is bad for both, and a single figure of merit for either is a figure of merit for one property of a spectrum.

    part 15 · light
  43. A 2-nanometre notch, and what two five-nanometre grids record of it. The reflectance of a sample with a 2-nanometre notch at 552.3 nm, drawn finely from 535 to 570 nm. The dark ticks are the samples of a five-nanometre grid starting at 380 nm and the pale ticks those of the same grid started half a step later. The true minimum is 0.06; the first grid's deepest sample reads 0.70 and the second's 0.08. The sample has put a line into a calculation whose light has none.

    The line can be in the sample

    The rule for which tabulation defect to fix compares the light's narrowest feature with the grid's step, and it named its own failure case — a sample with structure narrower than the step. Given one, a two-nanometre notch under a thermal source with no feature at all costs 2.1 colour differences at five nanometres and moves 2.0 when the grid slides, which is what a fluorescent tube costs on a smooth pigment. Under that tube a notch twelve nanometres wide, more than twice the step, moves 8.1 when it sits on the mercury line.

    part 16 · light
  44. What a five-nanometre grid costs a steep-sided notch, against its width, under a 6500 K source. The cost of a five-nanometre grid starting at 380 nm, against a reference at two hundredths of a nanometre, for a sample with a flat-bottomed notch at 552.3 nm under a 6500 K thermal radiator, against the notch's width from 2 to 30 nm, for edges rising in 0.4, 2.2, 6.6 nm. With the steepest edges the cost is 0.02 at 10 nm, 1.99 at 12.5 and 0.03 at 20: it rises and falls with the step as its period and does not die away as the notch widens. With the softest edges it stays under 0.10 at every width.

    The cost of a steep notch repeats every step

    A Gaussian notch is safe on a five-nanometre grid once it is a couple of steps wide. A flat-bottomed notch with steep sides never is. Its cost on the grid rises and falls with its width, with the step as its period — 0.02 colour differences at ten nanometres, 1.99 at twelve and a half, 0.03 at twenty — and it does not die away as the notch widens. What sets its size is how fast the edges rise, and an interference filter's edges rise in under a nanometre.

    part 17 · light
  45. A 12-nanometre notch at 546.1 nm under a fluorescent tube, tabulated five ways. The cost against a tenth-nanometre reference, on a five-nanometre grid, of a notched sample under a fluorescent tube, mercury lines on a phosphor bed, when the two factors of the colour are tabulated as points, when the lamp alone is measured through a five-nanometre slit, when the sample alone is, when each is measured through its own slit, and when the light the sample reflects is measured through one slit. The costs are 2.535 for both sampled at points, 0.379 for the lamp through a slit, 2.724 for the sample through a slit, 0.727 for both through their own slits, 0.019 for the product through one slit. The tick on the two-slit bar is the same two tables summed at a tenth of a nanometre, 0.749: what the separate slits leave is not the grid's.

    Two slits are not one slit

    A spectrometer's slit is what makes a coarse table honest, for a lamp and for a notched sample alike. But a colour is a sum over the product of the two, and a notch measured through one slit and a lamp measured through another are not the product measured through a slit. Under a smooth light the difference is nothing. Under a fluorescent tube a notch on the mercury line comes out 0.73 colour differences off from two slits — worse than no slit at all for some notches — and 0.02 off from one slit on the reflected light.

    part 17 · light
  46. Six ways of tabulating one notch on one mercury line. A 12-nanometre notch centred on a fluorescent tube's 546.1 nm line, its colour computed on a five-nanometre grid six ways, on a logarithmic scale. Point sampling costs 2.54 colour differences and two separate slits 0.727. Sharpening both blurred tables with the published three-term correction takes it to 0.188 — a real improvement, four times better — and one slit on the light the sample actually reflects gives 0.019. The correction recovers the part of the damage that is a blur, and the part that is left is not a blur.

    A linear repair for a bilinear loss

    The Stearns correction sharpens a table blurred by a triangular slit, and the obvious question was whether applying it to a lamp's table and a sample's restores the product the two of them are wrong about. It restores four fifths of the damage and cannot touch the rest: a three-term filter is linear, the covariance two separately blurred tables discard is bilinear in the two factors, and no linear operator applied to each factor separately produces a bilinear term. What is left is ten times the one-slit answer, at every position of the notch.

    part 18 · light
  47. One instrument, one slit, two requirements. The slit's width swept, with three measurements on a logarithmic scale: a smooth sample under the line lamp, where only the lamp's structure is at stake; the notched sample under a smooth lamp, where only the notch is; and the real case, both at once. The lamp wants a slit of 5 nanometres and the sample wants 1, and each wants what it wants for the same reason: a slit should spread a feature the grid cannot resolve and leave one it can. The real case is best at 3 nanometres — which is neither requirement's answer — and costs 0.247 there, an order of magnitude more than either requirement alone.

    One slit, two requirements

    A line lamp wants a wide slit, because a wide slit spreads a line where a coarse grid can see it. A notched sample wants a narrow one, because a wide slit fills the notch the grid could have resolved. An instrument has one slit. Measured on the two requirements separately the best widths are five nanometres and one; measured on the two together the best is three, which is neither — and it costs twelve times what the lamp alone would cost and thirty-four times what the sample alone would.

    part 18 · light
  48. An interference notch filter, and where a five-nanometre grid lands on it. The transmittance of a Fabry-Pérot etalon of order 24 and finesse 20, drawn at a fifth of a nanometre, with the standard grid's points marked. Its features are 2.29 nanometres wide and spaced 22.9 apart, so the grid steps over them: between two adjacent grid points the transmittance rises and falls completely, and neither point records it. That is what a real coating looks like, and a Gaussian notch — which is what this collection's earlier work used — is a much gentler object.

    A finer table is a worse table

    A real interference filter is not a Gaussian notch. It is an etalon, with pass bands a nanometre or two wide spaced twenty-three apart, and a five-nanometre grid steps over them. Resampled from the maker's one-nanometre table its colour is out by five colour differences under every fill-in rule — the three rules agree to three decimals, because none of them is ever handed a sample inside a feature. The same filter measured through a five-nanometre slit is out by 0.03.

    part 18 · light
  49. Every pair of slits, over 68 notches. The colour error, in ΔE₀₀ from the truth, for every pair of slit widths — the lamp's table blurred through the width down the side, the sample's through the width across — on 68 notches, the mean over all of them under a fluorescent tube. Circle area follows the error. The best pair is 5 nm on the lamp and 1 nm on the sample, at 0.26; the best single slit, on the diagonal, is 5 nm at 0.36. One slit on the reflected light, at 5 nm, averages 0.016.

    A second slit buys a quarter

    A line lamp wants a five-nanometre slit and a notched sample a one-nanometre slit, so an instrument with a slit for each should do much better than one with a single compromise. Over sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube, it does better by 28 per cent. One slit on the reflected light does fifteen times better than the best pair, and an oracle choosing the best pair for every notch is still six times worse. The error was never that the factors were flattened; it was that they were flattened separately.

    part 19 · light
  50. Three bounds against the error they bound, over 68 notches under a fluorescent tube. Each notch placed across by its actual colour error from blurring the lamp and the sample separately, and up by a bound on that error, both on logarithmic scales; the dashed diagonal is where a bound equals the error, and a valid bound sits above it. Cauchy–Schwarz with the true window variances is above the diagonal on every notch, a median 14.7 times the error. Estimated from the blurred tables it falls below on 6 of 68, as low as 0.45 of the error. The Bhatia–Davis bound from the tables and declared ranges is above on every notch and a median 196 times the error.

    The tables cannot bound what they discarded

    A colour computed from a lamp's blurred table and a sample's blurred table is wrong by the covariance the two blurs threw away, and Cauchy–Schwarz bounds a covariance by two variances. With the true variances the bound always holds and sits fifteen times above the error. With variances read from the tables it fails on six of sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube and twenty-two under a laser projector — on the line, where the error is largest. A blurred table does not carry the width of a line, and the covariance depends on it.

    part 19 · light
  51. What declaring a narrowest feature buys, and where it stops being true. The median looseness of a Cauchy–Schwarz bound whose lamp variance is bounded by a declared narrowest feature, against the width declared, for a fluorescent tube and a three-laser projector. Each lamp's own Bhatia–Davis bound — the peak declared and nothing else — is the upper dashed line, and the bound with the true variances is the lower one. The marks are the width each lamp's lines actually have. Declaring it truly takes the tube from ×196 to ×86 and the projector from ×30 to ×14. The open circles are declarations the lamp does not meet, where the bound falls below the error.

    A declared width buys a factor of two

    A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables cannot bound its own error from them, and the bound that always holds — the peak declared and nothing else — sits a median 196 times above the error under a fluorescent tube. Adding one number, the width of the lamp's narrowest feature, brings that to 86. It never fails on any declaration the lamp truly meets, it fails on 47 of 68 notches on one it does not, and its rank correlation with the error it bounds is 0.27.

    part 20 · light
  52. A finer grid shrinks both arrangements, and the gap between them stays. The mean error over sixty-eight notches of the best fixed pair of separate slits and of one slit on the reflected light at the grid's own step, on grids of one, two and five nanometres, under the tube and the projector. The tube's best pair falls from 0.256 to 0.019 and reaches the product's five-nanometre error of 0.016 without passing it; the product on the same fine grid is 0.0007. Under the projector the pair at one nanometre is 0.135.

    A finer grid keeps the price of separating

    A sample's reflectance and a lamp's spectrum measured through separate slits can be reused under any other lamp; measured together through one slit on the reflected light, they are fifteen times more accurate and belong to that one lamp. A finer grid was expected to close the gap, because a one-nanometre table barely blurs anything. It closes most of the distance to the old answer and none of the distance to the new one. On a one-nanometre grid the best separate pair under a fluorescent tube is as good as one slit on the product used to be at five, and one slit on the product on the same fine grid is twenty-nine times better again.

    part 20 · light
  53. Narrowing the slit makes the declared-width bound looser, not tighter. The median ratio of the declared-width bound to the error it bounds, over sixty-eight notches under each lamp, with the slit and the grid narrowed together from five nanometres to one and each lamp declaring its true line width; the dotted lines are the bound with both variances known. Under the tube the declared bound goes from ×86 at five nanometres to ×253 at one, while the true-variance bound stays between ×12 and ×15. Under the projector the declared bound lies on its true-variance bound at every slit.

    A narrow slit shrinks the error, not the bound

    A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables can bound its own error if the lamp declares its narrowest feature, and under a fluorescent tube that bound sits 86 times above the error at a five-nanometre slit. Narrowing the slit was supposed to close the gap, because a comb of narrow features stops fitting in a narrow window. It does the opposite. At one nanometre the error falls 27-fold and the bound only sevenfold, so the bound is 253 times loose and certifies no notch within a colour difference. The looseness was never the comb. It is the lamp's one declared peak, charged to every window.

    part 21 · light
  54. A correction measured under one tube, carried to seven other lamps. For each lamp, the mean error over sixty-eight notch filters of the separable table (upper bar), of the separable table corrected by the ratio of product to separable colour measured under the census tube (middle), and of the product measured under the lamp itself (lower). Under the census tube the correction is the product exactly; under tubes with other line widths or a moved phosphor bed it removes nine tenths of the error; under a tube with its lines re-mixed, 63 per cent; under the laser and the LEDs it makes things worse.

    A correction travels with its lines

    Keeping a sample's reflectance and a lamp's spectrum as separate tables costs fifteen times the error of measuring their product under a fluorescent tube. The middle course proposed was to measure the product once under a representative tube, store the ratio of product to separable colour with the sample, and apply it under any tube. Under tubes whose lines are narrower or wider, or whose phosphors sit elsewhere, it removes nine tenths of the error. Under a tube with the same lines in a different mix it removes under two thirds, and less the further the mix moves. Under an LED or a laser it makes things worse — a white LED five times worse than no correction. A class of lamps, for this purpose, is a mix of lines.

    part 21 · light
  55. The ceiling a table reads for each window, against the lamp it came from. The fluorescent tube between 525 and 590 nanometres, with the green and yellow mercury lines, and for each window of a one- and a five-nanometre slit the highest the lamp could be there according to the table's own entries. The dashed line is the tube's peak, which the global declaration charges to every window. At one nanometre the ceiling follows the lamp, a median 2.05 times each window's true peak; at five it sits on the global peak for twenty nanometres either side of each line.

    A narrow table can vouch for its own peaks

    The bound a colour engine can put on its bandpass error is loose because a lamp declares one peak for its whole spectrum and the bound charges it to every window. A table measured through a slit about as narrow as the lamp's lines can do better: no feature of the declared width can be blurred below a computable fraction of its height, so the table's own entries cap how tall the lamp can be in each window. At one nanometre that ceiling is never below the truth and sits twice above it, where the global peak sat twenty times above. The bound halves, and for the first time it certifies notches within a colour difference. At five nanometres it buys nothing at all.

    part 22 · light
  56. How well the table's entries around the 546 nm line fit each width of line. For the tube's green mercury line, 1.2 nm wide, the seven table entries around it fitted by a line of each width from 0.2 to 12 nm through the same slit on a sloping background, centre, height and background free: the best fit's miss. Through a one-nanometre slit the miss has a sharp minimum at the true width and only widths near it pass half a per cent; through two, a broader dip; through three and five the curve is flat from the narrowest width tried up to about two, and any of them passes.

    A narrow table declares its own lines

    A bound on a colour table's bandpass error needs one number from the lamp's maker: its narrowest feature, 1.2 nm for a fluorescent tube. Through a slit about as narrow as that feature, the table's entries around each line carry its width. Measured to half a per cent, a one-nanometre table's entries admit only line widths within four per cent of the truth, and a bound built on the narrowest of them is within two per cent of the bound on the maker's number. Through two nanometres the table still declares a usable width. Through three it cannot rule out a line five times narrower, and the bound it supports is the global one. The failure is as sharp as predicted, and never unsafe.

    part 23 · light
  57. A pair is refused once it is split by about a grid step. Two 1.2 nm lines centred on 578 nm and split by 0.3 to 4 nm, tabulated through slits of one, two and three nanometres on grids of the same step, and the least miss of any single line fitted to the entries round the peak. Each slit's curve crosses half a per cent between three quarters of its own step and one full step: a one-nanometre table refuses a pair split by 0.9 nm, a two-nanometre table one split by 1.8, a three-nanometre table one split by 3.

    A table can refuse a pair it cannot resolve

    A narrow spectral table reads each of its peaks as one line and declares the line's width from the entries round it, and the assumption under that is that every peak is a line. Split the mercury tube's yellow into the real pair at 577 and 579 nm and the table notices: through one and two nanometre slits no single line fits the entries within half a per cent, so the table refuses to read a width there. Swept apart, a pair is refused once it is split by about the grid step and admitted when it is closer — always as one wider line, up to 3.3 times too wide. Through three nanometres the pair reads as a 3.2 nm line, and a 3 nm europium band beside it reads the same.

    part 24 · light
  58. Wings raise the width a table declares, and it follows the line's half maximum. The width the tube's table declares for itself at half a per cent — the narrowest width any of its peaks admits — as every mercury line is given Lorentzian wings from nothing to half its core's width, through one and two nanometre slits, beside the Voigt line's own full width at half maximum. With no wings both slits declare under 1.2 nm; with wings a quarter of the core's, 1.36 through 1 nm and 1.41 through 2 nm, against a half-maximum width of 1.37. Through one nanometre the table declares nothing at the widest wings: every line is refused.

    A line's wings widen the width a table declares

    A narrow table declares its lamp's narrowest line width by fitting each peak with a Gaussian, and the worry was a line whose profile is not Gaussian: a mercury line broadened by collisions has Lorentzian wings on its core, every line shares them, and a Gaussian fit can only take the wings in by widening. It does. With wings a quarter of the core's width, the table declares 1.36 nm for a 1.2 nm core — close to the winged line's own half-maximum width, 1.37. The prediction called that the unsafe direction. It is not: the ceiling and the variance the earlier bound builds on the declared width never fall below the winged lamp's own, because through a slit a winged line behaves like the wider line the table says it is.

    part 25 · light
  59. Where the ceiling on a self-absorbed line holds, and where it does not. In the windows within four nanometres of the 546 nm line, the smallest ratio of the ceiling the tables put on a window's peak to the absorbed line's true peak, built on the narrowest width the table admits for the line and on the emitted 1.2 nm, through each slit. On the admitted width the ceiling holds to a depth of three and falls below the peak at 3.5 (×0.981) and 4 (×0.885) through two nanometres. On 1.2 nm it holds through two nanometres at every depth.

    A reversed line is read as one line

    A strong mercury line in a dense discharge absorbs its own centre on the way out: at an optical depth of one its top is flat, and beyond that it dips, until at four the line is two humps with a trough eighty per cent deep between them. The prediction was that a one-nanometre table refuses such a line from a depth of about one and a two-nanometre table reads it as a Gaussian about the width of its flat top, safely. Both hold, and the second only up to a point. A two-nanometre table admits the line at every depth to four, and from three and a half the width it admits is too wide for the humps: the ceiling built on it falls eleven per cent below the line's true peak. The only line that could make a declared width unsafe was one narrower at its peak than its entries suggest — and a reversed line is exactly that.

    part 26 · light
  60. Where a two-nanometre table's ceiling on a notched line fails. In the windows within four nanometres of the 546 nm line, the ceiling built on the narrowest width a two-nanometre table admits for the line, as a multiple of the absorbed line's true peak, behind columns a whole, a half and a third as wide as the line. The uniform column's ceiling crosses below one at a depth of 3.42 and ends where the table refuses the line; the half and third columns' cross at 2.34 and 2.35 and are never refused, falling to ×0.73 and ×0.80 at a depth of five.

    A notch in a line is never refused

    A dense discharge's green mercury line loses its centre to the atoms between the glow and the tube wall, and those atoms are cooler than the glow, so their absorption is narrower than the line it cuts. With the absorbing layer half or a third as wide as the line, a one-nanometre table still refuses the line from an optical depth of one, exactly where it refused the broad dip. A two-nanometre table never refuses it at all: to a depth of five, with ninety-eight per cent of the centre gone, one Gaussian fits its entries within a seventh of a per cent. And the ceiling built on the width it reads fails from a depth of about two and a third — a whole unit sooner than behind a column as wide as the line — and never recovers, falling to three quarters of the true peak.

    part 27 · light
  61. Where a reversed tube's table declares a width its ceiling cannot stand on. With every mercury line behind its own column, in proportion to its strength, the ceiling built on the width the whole table declares — the narrowest any of its peaks admits — as a multiple of the reversed lamp's true peak in the worst window, through one and two nanometres behind columns as wide as the lines and half as wide. The one-nanometre lines stop where the table refuses every peak and declares nothing. Through two nanometres behind the cooler column the table never stops declaring, and its declaration is unsafe from a depth of two and a half, falling to ×0.69.

    A reversed tube declares from its least reversed line

    A spectral table declares its lamp's line width as the narrowest width any of its peaks admits, and that declaration survived every reversed line so far because the tube's other lines were left unreversed to set it. A real discharge reverses its strong lines together. With every mercury line behind its own column, in proportion to its strength, the prediction was that a one-nanometre table would refuse every strong line and declare from the weak violet line, and a two-nanometre table would declare an unsafe width from a green-line depth of two and a half. The violet line is never read as a peak at all. The yellow line, the least reversed of the three that are, sets the declaration at every depth and widens it as it reverses. Through one nanometre the table refuses the blue and green lines and goes on declaring from the yellow — unsafely, in the violet's window, the one line the table never checked. Through two nanometres behind a cooler layer it refuses nothing, and from two and a half its declaration fails in the blue line's window, down to seven tenths of the true peak.

    part 28 · light
  62. A stricter fit makes the reversed tube's declaration fail sooner. Through two nanometres, with every mercury line behind its own column, the ceiling built on the width the table declares — as a multiple of the reversed lamp's true peak in the worst window — at fit thresholds of half, a fifth and a tenth of a per cent, behind columns half as wide as the lines and as wide. Every stricter threshold lowers the ceiling at every depth; behind the cool column it falls below the true peak from a depth of two instead of two and a half.

    A stricter fit declares a wider line

    A two-nanometre table of a mercury lamp whose every line is self-reversed admits every reversed line as a Gaussian within half a per cent, and declares a width its own ceiling cannot stand on from a depth of two and a half. The obvious repair is to fit harder. The prediction was that at a tenth of a per cent the table refuses the reversed blue and green lines, admits the least-reversed yellow, declares unsafely from it between — and that a threshold that strict would refuse even unreversed lines on a real instrument's noisy table. The refusals come where predicted: the blue from a depth of three, the green from four. But the stricter threshold makes the declaration less safe, not more. It narrows the range of widths each line admits from below, so the yellow, never refused, declares a wider width at every depth, and the ceiling built on it falls below the true peak from a depth of two instead of two and a half. And a tenth of a per cent survives a quiet instrument: no unreversed line is refused until the table's noise reaches half a per cent — and then the first line refused is the yellow, the one that declares.

    part 29 · light
  63. One nanometre finds the yellow's notch; two find a spike. The depth of the notch a reversed-line fit finds at the reversed tube's 578 nm yellow peak, every line behind a column half its width, on the clean one- and two-nanometre tables at eleven column depths. On the one-nanometre table the notch is -0.02 of the line when nothing is reversed and grows at every depth, to 0.99. On the two-nanometre table it is negative at every depth — from -4.2 to -0.06 — a spike added to sharpen a wide Gaussian, not a notch cut from a reversed one.

    Two nanometres hide the yellow's notch from any fit

    A plain Gaussian fit admits the reversed tube's 578 nm yellow line at every threshold on a two-nanometre table, and the ceiling built on its width fails from a column depth of two and a half. A fit with the notch in it — an emitted Gaussian with an absorbed one taken out of its centre — might see what the plain fit cannot. The prediction was that two nanometres leave too few entries to determine the notch, and one nanometre finds it from a depth of two. Two nanometres hide it completely: the best notch fit carries a negative notch, a spike, at every depth, and the readings a two-standard-error rule calls reversed are the same noise draws at every depth, each fitting a notch that erases the whole line. One nanometre finds it sooner than predicted — in every reading from a depth of one and half of them at a half — and its fitted depth climbs with the column. But its standard error cannot be trusted with seven entries and four numbers: the rule calls a third or more of unreversed readings reversed. The notch's fitted depth itself separates them cleanly.

    part 30 · light
  64. Declared at the notch fit's width, the ceiling holds to two. For the reversed tube — every line behind a cool column half its width — the ceiling a declaration builds over the lamp's true peak, in the window where it is lowest, against the column's depth. On the one-nanometre table: the plain declaration, which falls below the true peak from a depth of a half and stops at two, where the table refuses every line; the ceiling on the notch fit's width; and the ceiling on the tube's true 1.2 nm core. The notch fit's ceiling lies on the true core's, safe to a depth of two and unsafe from two and a half; on the two-nanometre table the true core's is safe to three.

    The notch fit declares the true width, and the true width runs out

    A lamp's table declares the narrowest line width its peaks admit, and builds on it a ceiling for how high any line can rise between the entries. A reversed tube breaks both: its lines are notched by cooler gas, a plain fit reads each notched line as a wider one, and on a one-nanometre table the ceiling falls below the true peak from a column depth of a half, until at two the table refuses every line and declares nothing. A fit with the notch in it reads the yellow's notch on that table, and the proposal was to declare the line it finds underneath — notch taken back out — with the prediction that the ceiling then holds to a depth of three. It holds to two. The notch fit returns the tube's own 1.2 nm core within two hundredths of a nanometre at every depth, clean and in noisy readings, and the ceiling built on it is safe to two and fails from two and a half, in the window beside the reversed blue line. So does the ceiling built on the true width itself, at the same depths to within a hundredth. The repair is perfect, and what fails past two is the ceiling's rule, which assumes the lines it bounds are not notched.

    part 31 · light
  65. With the notch in it, the ceiling holds to the deepest column. For the reversed tube on the one-nanometre table, the ceiling over the lamp's true peak in its lowest window against the column's depth: built on the 1.2 nm core with no notch, and with each window's factors taken for its line's notch — from the true depths, from the notch fit's depth read as an optical depth, and from the fitted depth used directly. At a depth of five the four ceilings sit at 0.776, 1.110, 1.295 and 0.972 times the true peak.

    A ceiling that knows the notch holds to the deepest column

    A lamp's table promises a ceiling for how high any line can rise between its entries, and for a reversed tube — every line notched by a cooler column — that ceiling fails on a one-nanometre table from a column depth of two and a half, because its rule assumes the line it bounds has no notch. The notch fit already reads the yellow line's notch, and the proposal was to build the ceiling for a notched line instead: in each window, the factor for a slit-blurred line carrying that window's notch. The prediction was that it holds to a depth of four. It holds to five, the deepest column the census runs, at every depth and in every one of 440 noisy readings. The fit's depth must be read as an optical depth, −ln(1 − d); taken as the first-order depth it fits as, the ceiling fails from four and a half. Part of the safety is the fit's own error: read that way, a deep notch comes out too deep — 4.25 for a true 2.29 at depth five — and an overstated notch only raises the ceiling.

    part 32 · light
  66. A coarse table holds to the deepest column on a borrowed notch. For the reversed tube on the two-nanometre table, the ceiling over the lamp's true peak in its lowest window against the column's depth: with no notch, with the true notch, and with the notch borrowed from the one-nanometre fit; beside the one-nanometre table's ceiling on its own fitted notch. Without a notch the coarse ceiling fails from three and a half; with the borrowed notch it stands 8.4 to 42.4 per cent above the true peak at every depth.

    A coarse table can borrow a notch, but not a phantom

    A one-nanometre table can bound a reversed lamp by building its ceiling for the notch its own fit reads. A two-nanometre table cannot read the notch, and its ceiling, built for an unnotched line, fails from a column depth of three and a half. The proposal was to borrow the notch from the finer table, and the prediction that the coarse ceiling then holds to five with a wider margin. It does: 8 to 42 per cent above the reversed lamp's true peak at every depth, against the fine table's 1 to 29. But borrowed from the fine table's noisy readings, one notch in 440 sinks the coarse ceiling below the true peak — a notch of 0.13 the fit read in noise where there was no column at all. Under a wide slit a shallow notch flattens a line's top, two flanking entries see more of it, and a ceiling that assumes the notch is set lower; the phantom set it too low. Borrowing only notches the depth rule calls — deeper than 0.2 — keeps all 440 safe; borrowing those more than twice their error does not.

    part 33 · light
  67. From three nanometres a table needs no notch at all. For the reversed tube read through slits of two to five nanometres, the ceiling built on the line's unnotched core width, over the lamp's true peak in its lowest window, against the column's depth. The two-nanometre ceiling fails from three and a half; the three-, four- and five-nanometre ceilings stay above the true peak at every depth, the least by 4.7 per cent.

    A wide table needs no notch to borrow

    A two-nanometre table of a reversed tube cannot read the notch a cooler column cuts in its lines, and its ceiling, built for an unnotched line, fails from a column of three and a half; borrowing the notch a one-nanometre table read rescues it at every depth. The prediction for coarser tables was that a shallow notch lifts their flanking-pair factor further — to a fifth at five nanometres — and that the five-nanometre ceiling on a borrowed notch still holds to five. Both hold: the rise is 15, 18 and 20 per cent at three, four and five nanometres, and every borrowed ceiling stays above the true peak. But a table three nanometres wide or wider never needed the notch. Its unnotched ceiling stands at least 4.7 per cent above the true peak at every column depth, because each of its entries carries so little of any line's peak that the ceiling built on them sits high above every line, reversed or not — and borrowing the notch takes up to twenty points of that margin away.

    part 34 · light
  68. The ratio of slit to core nearly decides when a notch matters. For the reversed tube with line cores of 1.2, 2.4 and 3.6 nm, read through slits of two to five nanometres: the first column depth at which the ceiling built for an unnotched line falls below the true peak, against the slit over the core, with "never" for tables that hold at every depth. 0.56: 0.5, 0.83: 1, 0.83: 1.5, 1.11: 2.5, 1.25: 2, 1.39: 3, 1.67: 3.5, 1.67: 4, 2.08: 3.5, 2.50: never, 3.33: never, 4.17: never — every ratio of two and a half or more never fails, every ratio up to 2.08 fails, the threshold a little above the predicted two.

    A broad line brings the notch back to a wide table

    A table of a reversed tube read through a slit three nanometres wide or wider never needs the notch a cooler column cuts in its lines: its ceiling, built for an unnotched line 1.2 nanometres wide, stays above the true peak at every column depth. The reason offered was that a wide entry carries too small a share of a narrow line's peak to be fooled, and the prediction was that broader lines undo it — that at a core of 3.6 nanometres the five-nanometre table fails from a column of about three, and that a table needs the notch wherever its slit is less than about twice the line's core. The five-nanometre table fails from a column of three, exactly. Across twelve tables of three cores and four slits, the column at which the unnotched ceiling first fails rises with the slit-to-core ratio — from a half at 0.56 to three and a half or four near 1.7 — and every table at a ratio of 2.5 or more holds; but a ratio of 2.08 still fails, so the threshold sits a little above two. With the true notch, every table holds.

    part 35 · light
  69. Wings raise every core-built ceiling's margin over the peak. The reversed tube with every line a 2.4 nm Gaussian core convolved with Lorentzian wings, read through slits of four, five and six nanometres, each window's ceiling built for an unnotched line of the core's width: the least ceiling over the true peak at any column depth to five, against the wings' width. 4 nm: −5.7%, +2.2%, +13.0%; 5 nm: −11.6%, −3.3%, +8.0%; 6 nm: +7.3%, +15.4%, +27.8%.

    Wings make a broad line easier to bound from its core

    A spectral table read through a wide slit can still bound a reversed mercury tube's true peaks with a ceiling built for an unnotched line, so long as the slit is more than about two and a half times the lines' Gaussian core; at a ratio of 2.08 a five-nanometre table fails from a column depth of 3.5. A real discharge line has Lorentzian wings, which widen the width a table declares, and the prediction was that wings move that threshold out in proportion to the declared width, while a ceiling built on the declared width keeps it where it was. Both halves fail, the first in direction. With wings a tenth of a 2.4 nm core's width the five-nanometre table holds to 4.5, and with a quarter it holds at every depth, by eight per cent: wings take power from a line's peak and give it to the table's entry. A ceiling built on the wider declared width fails three of six winged tables that the core-built ceiling serves.

    part 36 · light
  70. Even half a core of wings leaves the three-nanometre table short at the deepest column. The three-nanometre table's worst ceiling over the true peak at every column depth, built for the core's width, with the lines bare and with wings a tenth, a quarter and a half of the core's width. It fails from depths of 2, 2, 2.5, 5 as the wings widen; with wings a half it holds to 4.5 and falls 1.1 per cent short at five.

    Wings rescue a three-nanometre table only to its deepest column

    Lorentzian wings on a reversed tube's lines make every four-, five- and six-nanometre table's ceiling, built for the lines' 2.4 nm core, safer by eight to twelve points of margin a step, so that wings a quarter of the core's width carry all three to every column depth. The three-nanometre table, at a slit-to-core ratio of 1.25, is the one a bare broad line failed earliest, from a depth of two. The prediction was that it still fails with a quarter's wings, from about three, and holds at every depth only with a half's, because a narrow slit averages less of a line's skirt. The first half holds, half a step early: a quarter's wings fail it from 2.5. The second fails by a hair: with wings half the core's width the three-nanometre table holds to a depth of 4.5 and falls 1.1 per cent short at five. Its margin climbs by 6.6, 9.0 and 13.2 points a step — the smallest lifts of any table, from the lowest start.

    part 37 · light
  71. Built for the notch, the three-nanometre table holds at every depth. The three-nanometre table's worst ceiling over the true peak at every column depth, built for the unnotched core and for each window's notched line, with the lines bare and with wings half the core's width. Built for the notch, the bare table's least margin is +0.3% at a depth of 1.5 and +8.1% at five; built for the core it was −29.9% at five.

    A ceiling built for the notch holds the three-nanometre table

    A table of a reversed discharge lamp read through a three-nanometre slit cannot see the notch a cool column of vapour cuts into each line's core, and a ceiling built for an unnotched core — the bound on how high the lamp can peak inside each window — fails from a column depth of two, and even with broad wings at five. The prediction was that a ceiling built for each window's notched line holds at every depth with any wing, by more than two per cent. It holds at every depth with any wing. With bare lines it holds by three tenths of a per cent at its tightest, at a moderate column, beside mercury's violet lines. Knowing the notch costs the shallow columns and pays the deep ones, because a shallow notch flattens a line's top and a deep one splits it.

    part 38 · light

All series