Quote - The Color_Math node is the same as a Math_Node function by function. The difference is that a color is actually 3 numbers, one each for red, green, and blue. Any of the math functions is applied to all 3 values simulatenously and independently. Thus, a Color_Math is identical to 3 individual Math_Nodes working in parallel.

So you like those graphs, do you? Did you know they were generated not with some scientific graphic software, but with Poser itself? Yep each of those graphs is actually the output of a special shader, applied to a one-sided square. Do you know where that shader came from? Me.

Click here to see the original thread about these graphs, and how to make your own in Poser.

Matmatic gurus - graph your functions fast by bagginsbill on 11/01/06

You need to be able to visualize what math functions do in order to manipulate them in your head. Many things you'll try in the material room will not be possible to visualize until the last step.

Bill, here's where the whole thing kinda goes pear-shaped for me. Manipulating math functions in my head has never been my strong suit... but more to the point: the practical significance of what these formulas and functions mean to colours completely eludes me. I feel I'm reading post-graduate work when I'm a pre-med student. The whole thing is all too obscure.

I have been doing my experiments... so far, I've only had time to explore a few channels of the PoserSurface node, but googling and doing searches on the Node Cult forum leads me to believe that that area alone (the PoserSurface node and all its channels) is worth months if not years of work to understand. I haven't even begun to look at any other nodes.

I can't help but feel there is just one missing point, some elusive clue that will bring on the great "Aha!" Obviously, others have experienced it. I don't want shortcuts: I just want plain answers. The prospect of performing minutiae experiments on each and every channel, graphing the results and then, postulating what is actually going on without any certainty is an exercise in futility. I can come up with all sorts of erroneous conclusions based on my observations (and have!): I have no mathematical background, and I don't understand why the formula f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1 means something to me. All that was just so many words... to me. Not to CobaltDream or Iceboy or any of the other math wizards on here, but it was to me. I have no frame of reference to start my comprehension with.

If I told you that in order to define vascular dominance of cardiac vessels, one determines which vessel aliments the apex of the heart: if it's the left anterior descending artery of the left coronary tree, the circulation would be considered left dominant, if it's the posterior decending artery, then right dominance is assumed... if I told you that and you were actually passionately interested in this, I would have to at least provide a diagram of the blood vessels and what they feed and how a blockage would affect the performance of the heart and what the significance of right vs left dominance would have, to you. Chances are quite good none of this would interest you, but if it did, a bit of ground would have to be covered before the above statement would mean anything to you.

As brilliant as your explanation was, there was too wide a gap between my understanding of the significance of those formulas and nodal behaviour and myriad other things - this is after copious reading and study and becoming more and more confused - so it was placed in the "Too-Hard" basket.

BUT.

I can't let it go. I have to know. Where to I start? Experiments are doing nothing to clarify anything: they are relatively meaningless because of the lack of frame of reference.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks