Can I Name These Haloalkenes Using the Preferred Numbering System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kelvin macks
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the naming of two haloalkenes based on the preferred numbering system. For the first compound, it is clarified that the correct name should prioritize the lowest possible numbering, making "3-bromo-5-fluorohexane" incorrect. The second compound's naming is debated, with a suggestion that "2-iodo-1-methylcyclohexane" is preferable over an alternative that would assign higher numbers. The key takeaway is the emphasis on using the lowest numbers for substituents in chemical nomenclature. Proper application of these rules is essential for accurate naming in organic chemistry.
kelvin macks
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



for the substance on the left of first photo, can I name it as 3-bromo-5fluorohexane? for the substance on the right can I name it as 2-iodo-1methylcyclohexane?



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140605_052444[1].jpg
    IMG_20140605_052444[1].jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 856
Physics news on Phys.org
kelvin macks said:
can I name it as 3-bromo-5fluorohexane

No. You should choose numbers so that they are lowest possible.

I am not sure about the other one. I think numbering them 1, 2 is preferred over 2, 1 - it is the same rule as above, 1, 2 is considered the lower of two series.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top