Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Proposed amendment to CIP Rule 1b

I need to think more about it tomorrow, I think your logic is correct but I wouldn't say it's critically important. You're conflating two procedures - a) finding stereochemistry vs b) naming it. You only need CIP for b, a is more efficiently and correctly handled with group theory. "Everything

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Proposed amendment to CIP Rule 1b

- John > On 15 May 2017, at 23:47, Robert Hanson wrote: > > I'm interested in two things. First, feedback on a proposed amendment to CIP > Rule 1b. Second, suggestions for how to officially propose this. > > Current Rule 1: > > (1a) higher atomic number precedes lower;

[BlueObelisk-discuss] Proposed amendment to CIP Rule 1b

I'm interested in two things. First, feedback on a proposed amendment to CIP Rule 1b. Second, suggestions for how to officially propose this. Current Rule 1: *(1a) higher atomic number precedes lower;* *(1b) a duplicate atom node whose corresponding nonduplicated atom node is the root or