Color Science differences

LOL. The point with abstract maths is deciding which representation makes a problem more or less tractable.

The problem with the maths is that it can obscure what is a relatively simple concept, that is that you can't describe a complete spectral distribution with three scalars, so metamerism is inevitable. There will always be any number of spectral distributions that produce the same three scalars. You need the maths to actually work through a solution, but not to understand the basics of the phenomenon.

Absolutely, but mostly people here will be interested in the idea that metameric failures exist, not the detailed analysis of them.

+1 on that approach.

But if one does not understand linear algebra (or even if understands it somewhat, but not in required level), what then?

Bob's last statement "you can't describe a complete spectral distribution with three scalars, so metamerism is inevitable" is much easily understandable - it expresses the same concept, albeit not in rigorous mathematical way.

I think both views are valuable. Mathematics shows what is scientifically correct and expressing concepts in less scientifical way helps general public to not develop wrong understandings (and see problems with incorrect explanations).

How many people here are familiar with linear algebra?

That's exactly wha I didn't do. I presented my opinion and the reason it was my opinion.I don't believe that I'm always right. I just think that it's a simple courtesy if you're saying that someone's opinion is incorrect to explain why it's incorrect. You didn't have the grace even to do that. You just made a snarky comment.

I think you'll find that it does. Or it did when I did my Physics degree. That was a long time ago, maybe it has stopped since then.
Nope, it hasn't. See this from the University of Waterloo. It usefully includes instructions for experiments that show how it does. Why not have a go at them? A little bit pf practical work can be useful for a mathematician.
If you think that they got it wrong, then so did Millersville University, MIT and Harvard

Sure. If you go back along this thread you'll find that nowhere have I said that you are wrong (apart from the above comment, where you clearly are), or even suggested such a thing. I'm not sure why you're acting so hostile.

Now I'm completely bemused. What did I do to warrant such a nasty, snide comment from you? Please do tell me.

Erm, OK.

Agreed. I mis-spoke. What I meant to say is that to the mathematically uninitiated, a mathematical discussion may not be understood, whilst it maybe relatively easily explained, at least in outline, in other ways. It's a matter of communication.

And to make a full description you'd need to define the function space, which would involve many more symbols than three.

Forty-two :) Encompasses everything and more.

I was going to check privately if that was you who requested it. But as you have posted it here, I will remove your membership now.

Alan

I genuinely wanted to know.