Organic chemistry, naming cycloalkenes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the correct naming of a cyclopentene compound, specifically whether it should be called 3-fluoro-2-methyl cyclopentene or 4-fluoro-3-methyl cyclopentene. According to IUPAC rules, the double bond carbons are designated as #1 and #2, with the nearest substituent rule determining the numbering direction. After clarification, it is confirmed that the correct name is 4-fluoro-3-methyl cyclopentene, as this follows the proper numbering convention. Further detail is provided, explaining that if the top carbon is designated as #1 and counted counter-clockwise, it leads to an incorrect naming. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of adhering to IUPAC rules for accurate chemical nomenclature.
TheRedDevil18
Messages
406
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



organic.jpg


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Shouldnt the name for that be 3-fluoro-2-methyl cyclopentene instead of 4-fluoro-3-methyl cyclopentene ?, if not can someone explain to me why ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the IUPAC rules:
In cycloalkenes the double bond carbons are assigned ring locations #1 and #2. Which of the two is #1 may be determined by the nearest substituent rule.
 
The carbon at the top, on the tip of the pentagon, because if you number clockwise from that carbon the methyl will be on the second carbon and the fluoroide on the third.
 
TheRedDevil18 said:
The carbon at the top, on the tip of the pentagon, because if you number clockwise from that carbon the methyl will be on the second carbon and the fluoroide on the third.
Did you read the rule? Let me quote again: the double bond carbons are assigned ring locations #1 and #2. If you number the top carbon #1, then you have to go counter-clockwise for the other double-bond carbon to be #2.
 
DrClaude said:
Did you read the rule? Let me quote again: the double bond carbons are assigned ring locations #1 and #2. If you number the top carbon #1, then you have to go counter-clockwise for the other double-bond carbon to be #2.

Oh, I see it now, so it should definitely be 4-fluoro-3-methyl cyclopentene. Thanks for making it more clearer :approve:
 
Just to add a further point of detail: if you take the top C to be #1 and go counter-clockwise, you get 4-fluoro-5-methyl cyclopentene. The nearest substituent rule then tells you to set the top C to #2 and count clockwise to get 4-fluoro-3-methyl cyclopentene.
 
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