We need libRS. Everyone reimplementing these rules is some type of madness.
On 9 Apr 2017 7:05 p.m., "Robert Hanson" <hans...@stolaf.edu> wrote:
> OK, I don't get the logic of this:
>
>
> Rule 1 (a) Higher atomic number precedes lower;
> (b) A duplicated atom, with its predecessor node having the same label
> closer
> to the root, ranks higher than a duplicated atom, with its predecessor node
> having the same label farther from the root, which ranks higher than any
> nonduplicated-atom-node (proposed by Custer, ref. 36)
>
> Rule 2 Higher atomic mass number precedes lower;
>
>
> Seriously? root distance is checked before isotope. Sure seems odd to me.
> Why would that distance check not be after atomic number and mass??
>
> Whatever...
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Robert Hanson <hans...@stolaf.edu> wrote:
>
>> OK, so I am reading Chapter 9 now to see the gory details. I didn't know
>> about the root-distance check, and so now
>>
>> 1-(bicyclo[2.2.2]octan-1-yl)-1-[1,5-dicyclopropyl-3(2-cyclop
>> ropylethyl)-pentan-3-yl]methan-1-ol.mol
>>
>> is working. So all of this is easy enough. That's probably it for
>> independent stereochemistry. Where there is a dependency of one
>> stereochemical determination from another -- R/S after E/Z; E/Z after R/S,
>> E/Z after E/Z, R/S after R/S -- obviously that takes some sort of more
>> general iteration.
>>
>> I think I will have to tackle that another day.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, John Mayfield <
>> john.wilkinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good good,
>>>
>>> Fake news before fake news - a paper published in the CCG journal by the
>>> CCG.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On 9 April 2017 at 16:51, Robert Hanson <hans...@stolaf.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, John. Don't worry. I just happened to look at that page prior to
>>>> designing my own.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:44 AM, John Mayfield <
>>>> john.wilkinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 April 2017 at 13:42, Robert Hanson <hans...@stolaf.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [I actually do know it is Cahn; pulled "Cohen" without thinking from
>>>>>> https://www.chemcomp.com/journal/chiral.htm. Serves me right. Duh!]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that the algorithm you implemented because it's not correct - it
>>>>> doesn't (and can't) handle ghost atoms. Trying to track down the example
>>>>> but Daniel Lowe constructed a small reproducible example to demonstrate
>>>>> why
>>>>> this can never work.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Blueobelisk-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Robert M. Hanson
>>>> Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
>>>> St. Olaf College
>>>> Northfield, MN
>>>> http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If nature does not answer first what we want,
>>>> it is better to take what answer we get.
>>>>
>>>> -- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert M. Hanson
>> Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
>> St. Olaf College
>> Northfield, MN
>> http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
>>
>>
>> If nature does not answer first what we want,
>> it is better to take what answer we get.
>>
>> -- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert M. Hanson
> Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
> St. Olaf College
> Northfield, MN
> http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
>
>
> If nature does not answer first what we want,
> it is better to take what answer we get.
>
> -- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
> Blueobelisk-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
Blueobelisk-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
