> Objective tests of Opponent-Colors Theory became possible when the theory was formulated as a hypothesis about how cone signals are transmitted to perception. The formal exposition spells out the mathematical transformation of cone responses to opponent-color pairs; baked into the math is the linearity of Opponent-Colors Theory implied by the description of color appearances as simple (mathematical) combinations of red-versus-green, yellow-versus-blue, and black-versus-white
Why does the fact that colour appearance can be described in terms of the unique hues imply that the representation must be linear?
This is a good question and I'm also not quite sure what to make of it. As no one has answered this for a while I'll give it a shot, even at the risk of being wrong.
I think that what they are saying is that linearity is part of the status quo of Opponent-Colors Theory and they reject the whole thing including the linearity. So in essence they agree with you.
> Objective tests of Opponent-Colors Theory became possible when the theory was formulated as a hypothesis about how cone signals are transmitted to perception. The formal exposition spells out the mathematical transformation of cone responses to opponent-color pairs; baked into the math is the linearity of Opponent-Colors Theory implied by the description of color appearances as simple (mathematical) combinations of red-versus-green, yellow-versus-blue, and black-versus-white
Why does the fact that colour appearance can be described in terms of the unique hues imply that the representation must be linear?