Question for chemists from a physics-fag. How the fuck do you grasp your notation? Like seriously, the way you read molocules and shit is fucking unlegible.
>>8180110
there are naming conventions you have to learn. in chemistry there is currently a discrepancy between generations, as the old fucks had a system put into place, but the fresh meat redesigned the standard to be more intuitive.
most everyone knows the new notation because its really easy. i dont know why old people insist on using the older words to cause confusion. some are just easier to say I guess.
>>8180136
You happen to know the name of the two notation sets? Would like to find out which one I'm being taught.
>>8180139
IUPAC handles the naming conventions for current chemistry education and is named "IUPAC notation" accordingly if i remember correctly. I dont know what the old notation is called, but sure tell me what you are being taught.
>>8180141
Having gone over this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_inorganic_chemistry
I'm pretty certain I'm being taught the IUPAC standard.
Currently in Gen Chem 1 at a community college in Oregon, since you seemed interested.
>>8180154
tfw im in oregon too
sugoi
>>8180154
You'll get into notation mostly in organic chem and basic inorganic chemistry. No matter what field you are in, you need to be able to speak chemistry language if you are a chemist. This is chemistry language.
After organic it will be second nature, it's pretty easy to name organic compounds. Inorganic are pretty easy too, but I'm sure the rules get trickier as you start messing with more and more complex molecules. Honestly, it's nothing you need to worry about. It will come with time and exposure to the subject. You are in gen chem which I personally thought was one of the hardest classes I've ever taken, and I'm a chem PhD student now. Don't give up.
>>8180110
Literally no one uses IUPAC notation beyond 1st year chem
the semantic of chemistry is visual, not linguistic
>>8182620
So what's the nomenclature for this? Is the tetra because of the five hydroxyl groups?
>>8182622
The name is arbitrary, as it is for most (all) secondary metabolites.
the IUPAC name is (4R,4aR,5R,6S,7S,8S,8aR,10S,12S)-2-azaniumylidene-4,6,8,12-tetrahydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)-2,3,4,4a,5,6,7,8-octahydro-1H-8a,10-methano-5,7-(epoxymethanooxy)quinazolin-10-olate.
all this depending on where you decide to start numbering the molecule.
maybe there's a computational program that can assign new substances the simplest of all the possible IUPAC names, if there is I don't know about it, either way it's not something that a human would ever be reasonably expected to figure out
>>8180141
I don't think the old conventions have a single name. I could be wrong, though.
>>8182620
Your first statement is not true. Authors use IUPAC nomenclature all the time in papers, especially in the materials and methods sections.
But I agree with you that the semantic of molecules in chemistry is the structural formula.
>>8182675
>Authors use IUPAC nomenclature all the time in papers
you're probably right
having said that, the further you go into natural products, the more IUPAC gets dropped for the trivial naming system. I know for a fact that most analytical papers don't require it as a prerequisite for submission.
I'm not sure what the case is for total-synthesis but you're right, I imagine IUPAC naming requirements would be more stringent for experimentals
as an example
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-3397/14/6/111/htm
>>8182721
There are scripts that can name deawn compounds.
In synthesis and analysis you usually refer to the compounds using something like "the compound" and you only use the systematic name if you absolutely have to.
>>8182651
there's no depends, there's only one way to start numbering
>>8182741
>There are scripts that can name drawn compounds.
and they mostly come up with different results
https://web.chemdoodle.com/demos/iupac-naming/
>>8182748
thanks for the ruse
>>8182755
Eh, any of them is good enough.
Just draw the damn thing.
