This is a lighthearted romp while I am watching the cricket…
WA knows that it’s ambiguous – that could be lookup – but the IUPAC name ?????. I want to see Daniel’s expression when he sees it – he has a splendid way of indicating when he feels a name or structure violates the rules. I couldn’t find the “IUPAC” name in Pubchem or elsewhere so maybe Wolfram is generating it. If so, it’s going to have to encode an awful lot of rules.
Pentachloromethane (non-chemists – this doesn’t exist – carbon has only 4 valencies). However WA makes a brave (and completely wrong) guess:
So it looks like it has some sort of natural language engine. I’m not sure that’s a good thing to mix with algorithmic reasoning
It gets phosphorus trichloride and phosphorus pentachloride right, so I tried a non-existent compound.
This is internally inconsistent. The “formula” doesn’t match the Structure Diagram. It’s carefully put brackets into the name and then interpreted it wrongly. Maybe it’s a clever algorithm which just needs tuning or maybe it’s a fuzzy approach which is struggling.
However they have clearly paid people to put data in. I wonder where from?