IUPAC Naming of Organic Compounds: Cis and Trans Isomers with Substituent Groups

  • Thread starter Thread starter dolpho
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compounds Organic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the IUPAC naming of organic compounds, specifically focusing on cis and trans isomers with substituent groups. The user initially proposed the name "Cis-3-secbutyl, 1-methylcyclopentane" but found the correct answer to be "Cis-1-methyl-3-(1-methyl)propylcyclopentane." They questioned whether their original name was equivalent to the correct one. A response confirmed that both names refer to the same structure, noting that "sec butyl" provides more clarity than "1-methylpropyl," highlighting the complexities of IUPAC nomenclature. Understanding these naming conventions is crucial for accurately identifying organic compounds.
dolpho
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Give an acceptable IUPAC name for these compounds.

http://i.imgur.com/tHUpwYK.png

The Attempt at a Solution



So the question is really on the 2nd problem in the picture but I need to reference the first one for my question.

So my original guess on the 2nd problem was. Cis-3-secbutyl, 1-methylcyclopentane

I looked up the answer and it was... Cis-1-methyl-3-(1-methyl)propylcyclopentane

So I sort of understand how naming complex substituent groups work so I applied it to the first question and got... trans 1-(1-methyl)ethyl, 3-methylcyclohexane. The answer to that was trans-1-isopropyl-3-methylcyclohexane.

So just to reiterate my question, is Cis-3-secbutyl,1-methylcyclopentane the same as Cis-1-methyl-3-(1-methyl)propylcyclopentane?

If it's not I'd appreciate any help :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dolpho said:
is Cis-3-secbutyl,1-methylcyclopentane the same as Cis-1-methyl-3-(1-methyl)propylcyclopentane?
Yes. My gut says that "sec butyl" is more informative than 1-methylpropyl (since this is just a butyl chain), but IUPAC is wacky like that.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top