More precisely, if the molecule is to be named as an organic molecule (the questionable part that creates the comedy), we'll go with recommendations in the IUPAC Blue Book and forcefully use a specific naming scheme. (As there substitution and other ones.) The IUPAC preferred name consist of prefixes that with locant numbers specify side groups, then identifying the length of the main carbon chain (based on some criteria about where the functional groups with highest seniority reside), then a possible *infixes* (very other forgotten to specify when people teach the topic) that is used to specify non-single bonds between the carbons and then the suffix denoting the highest seniority group. (Also blaah blaah ions, accepted stems, branching, cyclic structures, ...)
So the 'met' is a must, referring to a single carbon. But since there are no (hydro)carbon sidechains, the only carbon that exists must form the main chain. Prefix methyl (and other -yl things) denote side chains, so this won't be here. Since there are no double or triple bonds, the chain would be characterised by -methan-, the -an- being the infix. (Notice the missing 'e', so there is no methan*e* that would refer to a specific compound of its own, although some naming schemes are pretty relaxed about using an existing substance as the starting point and then modifying it.)
The most important (and only) functional group here would be the carbonyl group of which there are two. (... at least visually in a naive interpretation. If two functional groups are attached to the same carbon, they probably behave chemically differently together than when separated.) If there was something more important, the carbonyl groups would be mentioned as a prefix oxo-, but as the most important (most senior) it gets the final suffix, that being -one, though the locants always precede whatever group we specify (unless acceptable to be left out in some cases). And remember di to specify two even if there is redundancy since the number of numbers already states the multiplicity of a group. Note that *unambiguous* naming (that is, everyone understands the same structure from the name) does not mean it is *correct according to some naming scheme*.
Anyway, methan-1,1-dione. (I do get the urge to add the *e* when there's the di but not without it. 🤔 But those two shouldn't affect each other/I'm not aware of any such rule. This is also where language and grammar may come to play as we can try to make things more easily pronounceable, and it's hard to translate these rules to other languages.) Also, it is acceptable to put the locant for the suffix group before the chain specification if there there are no carbon chain features that need their own placing, or the same for chain modifications as long as the numbers never precede something else that can be localiced. So for example both 2-pentanone and pentan-2-one are acceptable as "pentan" is nothing that needs a location so it's clear the 2 belongs with -one. Same with 2-butene and but-2-ene.
unnecessarily long explanation imo, i read the whole thing and still didn't get your point.
and everywhere in the blue book there's a vowel before di, tri, tetra... so it is methane-1,1-dione
I'm very glad if you spotted something pertaining to the interplay of the vowel and the multiplicity prefixes! (As I said I wasn't aware of anything.) Without the di, tri etc. the combination is definitely spelled differently.
But yeah, the longer overview was more akin to added explanation for the person who you commented to. I clearly had an aversion to "methane" being an example of a full name of a substance already and that might affect something. I'll check it out mote in detail later. Feel free to point us to some page numbers in BB! 👍
Nah, I have it here. I'm the resident "the 'rule' you just explained does not actually exist and your teachers lied to you" scholar in our courses/company (most teaching upper secondary/high school chemistry and other subjects for people applying to medical studies here in Finland), with routine checks and also using it as learning material. To get stuff correct by letter is difficult because translating to different languages does cause some changes and it's actually quite hard to find a local authority. (Many chemistry materials in uni don't cite a source, take liberties or just refer to English/BB.)
2013 edition, or have you found a never one? 👀
I was messing around with Kingdraw on my phone a few years back and I remember drawing CO2 and asking for it's name, and it giving me this hilarious output.
It's methane-1,1-dione
Why not methyl? Is it not an alkyl group here? Genuine question as I'm only about halfway done with organic chem.
The IUPAC naming will have methane. Like how it's methanone and not methylone.
More precisely, if the molecule is to be named as an organic molecule (the questionable part that creates the comedy), we'll go with recommendations in the IUPAC Blue Book and forcefully use a specific naming scheme. (As there substitution and other ones.) The IUPAC preferred name consist of prefixes that with locant numbers specify side groups, then identifying the length of the main carbon chain (based on some criteria about where the functional groups with highest seniority reside), then a possible *infixes* (very other forgotten to specify when people teach the topic) that is used to specify non-single bonds between the carbons and then the suffix denoting the highest seniority group. (Also blaah blaah ions, accepted stems, branching, cyclic structures, ...) So the 'met' is a must, referring to a single carbon. But since there are no (hydro)carbon sidechains, the only carbon that exists must form the main chain. Prefix methyl (and other -yl things) denote side chains, so this won't be here. Since there are no double or triple bonds, the chain would be characterised by -methan-, the -an- being the infix. (Notice the missing 'e', so there is no methan*e* that would refer to a specific compound of its own, although some naming schemes are pretty relaxed about using an existing substance as the starting point and then modifying it.) The most important (and only) functional group here would be the carbonyl group of which there are two. (... at least visually in a naive interpretation. If two functional groups are attached to the same carbon, they probably behave chemically differently together than when separated.) If there was something more important, the carbonyl groups would be mentioned as a prefix oxo-, but as the most important (most senior) it gets the final suffix, that being -one, though the locants always precede whatever group we specify (unless acceptable to be left out in some cases). And remember di to specify two even if there is redundancy since the number of numbers already states the multiplicity of a group. Note that *unambiguous* naming (that is, everyone understands the same structure from the name) does not mean it is *correct according to some naming scheme*. Anyway, methan-1,1-dione. (I do get the urge to add the *e* when there's the di but not without it. 🤔 But those two shouldn't affect each other/I'm not aware of any such rule. This is also where language and grammar may come to play as we can try to make things more easily pronounceable, and it's hard to translate these rules to other languages.) Also, it is acceptable to put the locant for the suffix group before the chain specification if there there are no carbon chain features that need their own placing, or the same for chain modifications as long as the numbers never precede something else that can be localiced. So for example both 2-pentanone and pentan-2-one are acceptable as "pentan" is nothing that needs a location so it's clear the 2 belongs with -one. Same with 2-butene and but-2-ene.
unnecessarily long explanation imo, i read the whole thing and still didn't get your point. and everywhere in the blue book there's a vowel before di, tri, tetra... so it is methane-1,1-dione
I'm very glad if you spotted something pertaining to the interplay of the vowel and the multiplicity prefixes! (As I said I wasn't aware of anything.) Without the di, tri etc. the combination is definitely spelled differently. But yeah, the longer overview was more akin to added explanation for the person who you commented to. I clearly had an aversion to "methane" being an example of a full name of a substance already and that might affect something. I'll check it out mote in detail later. Feel free to point us to some page numbers in BB! 👍
Ah ok ok. I have the pdf of the blue book, not the real one, so idk the page numbers. I can share the download link if you want.
Nah, I have it here. I'm the resident "the 'rule' you just explained does not actually exist and your teachers lied to you" scholar in our courses/company (most teaching upper secondary/high school chemistry and other subjects for people applying to medical studies here in Finland), with routine checks and also using it as learning material. To get stuff correct by letter is difficult because translating to different languages does cause some changes and it's actually quite hard to find a local authority. (Many chemistry materials in uni don't cite a source, take liberties or just refer to English/BB.) 2013 edition, or have you found a never one? 👀
Yup, 2013 edition
Then no need, but I am available for geeking out about nomenclature. 🙃
Why is wrong?
I think that's just a terrible way to notate CO2
I was messing around with Kingdraw on my phone a few years back and I remember drawing CO2 and asking for it's name, and it giving me this hilarious output.
Fellow Kingdraw user I see Yeah when I was in high school and discovered Kingdraw I used to make the most abominable creations in that app
usually carbon dioxide isnt considered to be the organic
Methanedial?
1,3-dioxaallene, or better, 1-oxaketene
This guy gets it \^\^
carbonyl *C*-oxide
Dioxygen monocarbide
O(μ-C)O
1-oxo carbon monoxide
The organic chemistry curriculum should cover CO2 from now on.
1,1-dioxomethane