No, 2-methylbutan-2-ol would imply that the methyl group and the alcohol group are on the same carbon and unless my eyes are lying to me (which may well be the case with these oversized wrong way round images) this is not the case.
Why do they say so? Surely there is some sort of criteria for this sort of thing?
Because everyone agreed to use their rules on naming compounds.
I edited my last post to include a link. It's loosely based around the oxidation state, where more oxidised groups tend to be higher priority but that's tenuous at best. You'll have to either look it up or memorise the chart if you want to.
Because everyone agreed to use their rules on naming compounds.
I edited my last post to include a link. It's loosely based around the oxidation state, where more oxidised groups tend to be higher priority but that's tenuous at best. You'll have to either look it up or memorise the chart if you want to.
My teacher said that this compoun is called 3-methlylbutan-2-ol but shouldn't it be called 2-methybutan2-ol because if you go the other way its 2.
Attachment not found
Your teacher is correct. According to the IUPAC rules, the numbering starts from the position which is nearest to the functional group(in this case the O-H group) is present so it cannot be 2-methylbutan-2-ol because this indicates that both the methyl group and the O-H group are on the same carbon and that is not possible according to the picture that is given. It is 3-methylbutan-2-ol.
Your teacher is correct. According to the IUPAC rules, the numbering starts from the position which is nearest to the functional group(in this case the O-H group) is present so it cannot be 2-methylbutan-2-ol because this indicates that both the methyl group and the O-H group are on the same carbon and that is not possible according to the picture that is given. It is 3-methylbutan-2-ol.
Oh I didn't know about that rule thats why. Thank you