File talk:Oxazine.png
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jynto in topic Impossible allenic isomers
Impossible allenic isomers edit
I doubt that the marked isomeres (six-membered cyclic allenes) exist. Without any proof (paper, publication) I consider them as sole original research. They should be removed or the image should be deleted due to the inaccuracy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- This diagram contains not only existing but all isomers formally possible that this diagram is as complete as possible. Besides, I'm not certain that all non allenic isomers exists, see C4H5NO on http://cactvs.cit.nih.gov/cgi-bin/lookup/search. So this "real existence" isn't a valid criterion for selection and remember, the absence of proof isn't proof of absence. --The Titou (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand you completly. On the one hand you admit that not all isomers (the allenic ones) exist, also public databases does not show them in any form. In addition, they haven't been mentioned in the literature or any textbook. On the other ahnd you simply claim that they are "formally possible" (without any proof). Hence they are solely from your imagination. Is that correct? --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- yes, I am a chemist, forgiveness and it is obvious that these allenic isomers are drawable as I did it as a mathematician can write 2 + 3 = 5 but require proof for such basic assertion is request proof for 1 + 1 = 2. But there are none! These are axioms , the simple base = Covalency of the elements is respected. So nothing prevents formally those isomers are - even if it's just in an ultra-elusive form in incredible conditions or even if it's just in silico like zum beispiel en:wp:1,3-dioxetanedione, PubChem CID = 17801328 --The Titou (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, literature (by and for chemists of course) only describes those eight (!) isomers. This has been considered in my image. So just show us where you have found those allenic isomers mentioned somewhere in the literature (1,3-dioxetanedione has been at least described in the literature, so your example is weak). If this is not possible than this image is subject for deletion. Statements like "ultra-elusive form in incredible conditions" is as good as "pink elephants do exist somewhere under incredible conditions" and nonsense. As chemist, you should know that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please note, your point of view makes me think about the chemists who are saying, at ancien time, the cubane is impossible !! discussion is finished and we resume it may be the day ... bye --The Titou (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, literature (by and for chemists of course) only describes those eight (!) isomers. This has been considered in my image. So just show us where you have found those allenic isomers mentioned somewhere in the literature (1,3-dioxetanedione has been at least described in the literature, so your example is weak). If this is not possible than this image is subject for deletion. Statements like "ultra-elusive form in incredible conditions" is as good as "pink elephants do exist somewhere under incredible conditions" and nonsense. As chemist, you should know that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- yes, I am a chemist, forgiveness and it is obvious that these allenic isomers are drawable as I did it as a mathematician can write 2 + 3 = 5 but require proof for such basic assertion is request proof for 1 + 1 = 2. But there are none! These are axioms , the simple base = Covalency of the elements is respected. So nothing prevents formally those isomers are - even if it's just in an ultra-elusive form in incredible conditions or even if it's just in silico like zum beispiel en:wp:1,3-dioxetanedione, PubChem CID = 17801328 --The Titou (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand you completly. On the one hand you admit that not all isomers (the allenic ones) exist, also public databases does not show them in any form. In addition, they haven't been mentioned in the literature or any textbook. On the other ahnd you simply claim that they are "formally possible" (without any proof). Hence they are solely from your imagination. Is that correct? --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not one of our points of view is something intereseting for an encyclopedia (see en:WP:POV). We are writing here about what is and not about what may be possible; do You have any reliable evidence, the other six isomers are existing ? Rgds --Cvf-ps (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yikrazuul and Cvf-ps. Those allenic isomers, if they existed (which they don't - angle strain would break those rings apart right away) would probably have very transient existences and offer no useful or notable properties. If there is a citation that proves me wrong, I'd like to see it. But until such a day, this image looks like a bit of a joke (by some coincidence it was uploaded on 1 April too). - Jynto (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
