Chemistry Name the following organic molecule (IUPAC)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around naming an organic molecule based on its structure. Initial suggestions included "3-pentene," but it was clarified that this name incorrectly implies a double bond between the 3rd and 4th carbon atoms. Participants debated whether the presence of a double bond affects the naming priority, concluding that the correct IUPAC name is "3-methylidenepentane." The conversation highlights the importance of accurately identifying the longest carbon chain and the position of double bonds in organic nomenclature. Ultimately, the correct naming conventions are essential for clear communication in organic chemistry.
PAR
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
3-pentene would actually be 2-pentene, and it would look something like this (excluding H's)

C-C=C-C-C or C-C-C=C-C

I see what you were trying to get at, but when you say 3-pentene, you're saying there is a 5 carbon chain that is the longest (correct) AND that there is a double bond connecting the 3rd and 4th carbon atoms =)

Here's my hint: try starting off at the double bond, and work your way up. What do you get now?
 
Last edited:
Slats18 said:
3-pentene would actually be 2-pentene, and it would look something like this (excluding H's)

C-C=C-C-C or C-C-C=C-C

I see what you were trying to get at, but when you say 3-pentene, you're saying there is a 5 carbon chain that is the longest (correct) AND that there is a double bond connecting the 3rd and 4th carbon atoms =)

Makes sense, so is it 2-ethyl-1-butene? Does the fact that it contains a double bond take priority over the longest carbon chain?
 
That's what I believe it to be =) Been over a year since I've done this, but I think it does for convience, as its just a C=C double bond. Different when it's a C=O double bond, as you could call it 3-pentanone. Either way, I think it's just easier to call it 2-ethyl-1-butene =)
 
IUPAC name is 3-methylidenepentane.
 
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