On the Categorical Use of Color

I have developed a theory about color exclusivity to supplement the common aesthetic understanding of the colorwheel. I have used the common valuative (that is, black and white) schema as a diagonal comparison establishing a point of opposition. The mystery at this point is then, what supplements three colors, if three are established? My conclusion was that grey is not included in the set: instead, grey is already established as an amelioration between black and white, which occurs only at the focii (or through context, as a general term for value); Hence, the fourth color labeled in fourth box, once it is established that white (representing all the spectrum) must transform to black (representing none of the spectrum) must consist of transparency, some might conclude that there is no remaining room, and the group would constitute a trinity. However, grey is not the product of either black or white with transparency, so the answer is that some fourth color or value is missing from the quandary. My solution is that it is a colorless substance, an ambiguous color with all the subtlety and none of the properties of ordinary colors. See for example the following diagram:

I found the mathematical material on wikipedia on a related subject to be overly complex. Perhaps they have actually missed the exclusive value of colors in arriving at such a complex and laborious, and yet, in its details, quite simplistic (amalgamistic, and inevitably quantitative) concept. Here is a link to the mathematical article on the subject of colors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_polynomial

(I had originally thought that Mr. Birkhoff was a philosopher. I was mistaken. At least he was famous).