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

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM, John Mayfield wrote: > > On 17 May 2017 at 18:01, Robert Hanson wrote: > >> Oh, that is very cool. So you think this is a failure of Rule 4b in the >> IUPAC rules? Very impressive. I don't think Jmol is making any

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

On 17 May 2017 at 18:01, Robert Hanson wrote: > ? Missing this reference. Better algorithm than what? Or you mean just in > general, if you get a null result, at least you are just missing something. > Either case, I think, you need a better algorithm. :) > As I said before,

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

Hi Bob, Daniel says he'd seen another example in ChEBI essentially the same as this where if you add Rule 1b it breaks the tie when it shouldn't. John On 16 May 2017 at 00:25, John May wrote: > I need to think more about it tomorrow, I think your logic is correct

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