You've got 2xCl on one C. The only other way of arranging everything is for 2 different C's to have 1xCl each. It doesn't matter (with position isomerism) whether the Cl's are next to each other or opposite.
You've got 2xCl on one C. The only other way of arranging everything is for 2 different C's to have 1xCl each. It doesn't matter (with position isomerism) whether the Cl's are next to each other or opposite.
So because on the second carbon there are two methyl groups, does that mean that even if both Cl's were on one of the two methyl groups (red) or one cl was on one of the methyl groups and another cl was on the methyl group opposite (orange) that would be the same thing?? Ik the picture is not correct but i just draw on the CL roughly to show what i mean
So because on the second carbon there are two methyl groups, does that mean that even if both Cl's were on one of the two methyl groups (red) or one cl was on one of the methyl groups and another cl was on the methyl group opposite (orange) that would be the same thing?? Ik the picture is not correct but i just draw on the CL roughly to show what i mean
There is no "opposite". The central carbon is tetrahedral, so all of the attached carbon atoms are identical.
You've got 2xCl on one C. The only other way of arranging everything is for 2 different C's to have 1xCl each. It doesn't matter (with position isomerism) whether the Cl's are next to each other or opposite.
Why doesn't it matter whether the Cl's are next to each other? In the case of dimethyl cyclohexane would there also be two positional isomers only?