Field

Beyond the octet

Hypervalency without d orbitals, delocalisation, aromaticity, and the structures the first-year rules quietly cannot describe.

sulfur hexafluoride — Oh. The molecule with the point group found from its coordinates rather than looked up: every candidate operation was applied and kept when it permuted the atoms among themselves.

Hypervalency without d orbitals

Sulfur hexafluoride is not d²sp³ hybridised. The d orbitals are far too high in energy to contribute meaningfully, the bonding is three-centre four-electron, and the textbook account has been known to be wrong for fifty years.

benzene — D6h. The molecule with the point group found from its coordinates rather than looked up: every candidate operation was applied and kept when it permuted the atoms among themselves.

Delocalisation

Benzene does not alternate between two structures. It has one structure, and the two Kekulé forms are basis functions in a description of it — which is a different and much less exciting claim than the one usually made.

Conjugation, and its limits

Every extra double bond in a chain lowers the gap between the highest occupied and lowest empty orbital, which is why long conjugated molecules are coloured. The trend has a limit, and the limit is not where the arithmetic says it should be.

Where two-centre bonding stops

A bond between two atoms is a special case, not the general one. Rings, clusters and metals are held together by orbitals spread over many centres, and the arithmetic that describes them is the arithmetic already used for benzene.

Rings of 6, 10, 20, 60 and the band at 2000. The Hückel levels of rings of 6, 10, 20, 60 atoms, all of them inside the same interval from −2 to +2, beside the density of states of a ring of 2000. The histogram is the computed levels; the line through it is the closed-form density, which diverges at both band edges.

The band limit

Every level of a ring of n atoms lies between −2β and +2β, however large n gets. The levels do not spread out as the molecule grows; they crowd into a fixed interval — and that crowding, computed, is a band with its density of states diverging at both edges.

Three-centre bonding, computed

Three orbitals in a line and four electrons: a bonding level, a level with exactly zero amplitude on the central atom, and an empty antibonding one. The middle atom never exceeds an octet, and the ligands carry the charge — which is why every molecule that needs this arrangement has electronegative ligands.

cyclobutadiene: what alternation costs and gains. The π energy of cyclobutadiene as its bonds are alternated by β(1 ± δ), the elastic cost of alternating them at a stated stiffness, and the sum. The π curve falls linearly in δ, which is measured here and is the whole difference between a molecule that distorts and one that does not. The stiffness is a stated parameter, so where the minimum falls is not a claim; which power of δ each curve goes as is.

The vibration that lowers the symmetry

A molecule in a degenerate electronic state distorts until the degeneracy is gone. Which distortion it needs is a direct product; whether it wins is a race between a π energy falling linearly and a σ frame resisting quadratically, and both powers are measured here.

pyrrole against cyclopentadienyl anion. The Hückel levels of pyrrole beside those of cyclopentadienyl anion, which is the same graph with one diagonal entry and the bonds touching it changed. The parent's levels are symmetric about α because its matrix has nothing on the diagonal; the substituted system's are not, and the asymmetry is the size of the fitted parameter rather than a result.

Six electrons in a ring that is not all carbon

Pyrrole and the cyclopentadienyl anion hold the same six π electrons in the same five-membered ring. The anion spreads them perfectly evenly; pyrrole's nitrogen keeps 1.720 of them and furan's oxygen keeps 1.791 — the more electronegative atom donates less, and the bond orders to it fall with it.

π bond orders in benzene. Each bond drawn with a thickness set by its computed pi bond order, and the number printed beside it. The orders come from the eigenvectors and cost nothing extra once the matrix is diagonalised.

What one pair can hold together

Put a single electron pair into a ring of any size and it supplies a total bond order of exactly two and a π energy of exactly 4β — three atoms, eight atoms or six hundred. Spreading a pair over more centres divides the bonding among them; it neither creates nor destroys any.

The ring with a twist in it

Reverse the sign of one resonance integral in a ring and its levels stop being one nodeless orbital above degenerate pairs and become degenerate pairs all the way up. The count that closes a shell changes from 4n+2 to 4n, and every aromatic ring size and antiaromatic ring size exchange places.

A cage needs one pair more than it has corners

Every closed borane holds n+1 skeletal electron pairs for n vertices, and the extra one is a theorem about connected graphs rather than an observation about boron. A cage's radial orbitals have exactly one nodeless combination, always, whatever its shape.

How often two electrons are in the same place. Double occupancy per site in the exact ground state of a chain of 4, against the repulsion. It starts at the independent-electron quarter and falls to nearly nothing. The second curve is how the neighbouring spins line up in the same wavefunction, which is already -0.0750 at no repulsion at all — that part is exchange — and deepens as the electrons are kept apart.

The hole that is not repulsion

Two electrons in a bond keep out of each other's way, and the obvious reason is that they repel. Setting the repulsion to zero and computing the spin correlation exactly gives −0.125 rather than nothing, and the number is reproduced to nine decimal places by a determinant with no repulsion in it at all.

Three orbitals in a line, four electrons in them. The three levels of a linear three-centre system, with the two lowest filled. The lower one is bonding across all three centres; the second has exactly zero amplitude on the middle atom, by symmetry rather than by arithmetic, so the two electrons in it sit entirely on the ends. That is where the charges come from: -0.5 on each end and +1 in the middle. Each of the two bonds has an order of 0.7071, which is 1/√2 and not the half the electron count suggests.

Hypervalency is about the ligands

The three-centre four-electron bond is offered as the reason sulfur hexafluoride needs no d orbitals. Read it forwards instead of backwards and it is a requirement rather than a permission — the arrangement puts half an electron onto each ligand before any electronegativity difference is applied, which is why the hypervalent compounds are fluorides and SH₆ is not a compound.

benzene: what alternation costs and gains. The π energy of benzene as its bonds are alternated by β(1 ± δ), the elastic cost of alternating them at a stated stiffness, and the sum. The π curve falls quadratically in δ, which is measured here and is the whole difference between a molecule that distorts and one that does not. The stiffness is a stated parameter, so where the minimum falls is not a claim; which power of δ each curve goes as is.

The hexagon is the frame's doing

Benzene's delocalisation energy is quoted as 2β and read as the reason its bonds are equal. Let the bonds alternate and the π energy goes down, not up — at every ring size, for 4n+2 as much as for 4n. The π electrons are not what keeps the hexagon regular; the σ frame is, and the margin between them is uncomfortably thin.

How far the ground state is from being one determinant. The occupations of the two natural orbitals of the Hubbard dimer against the repulsion. At zero they are two and nothing, which is a single determinant exactly. As the repulsion grows they converge on one and one, which is a state no single determinant has — the failure is in the description rather than in the number. The entropy of the occupations rises to ln 2, one bit: the two determinants of the singlet.

Two kinds of correlation, and only one is small

Correlation energy is defined as a subtraction, and the definition hides that the thing subtracted is not one thing. In the two-site model the local power of the correlation energy in the interaction falls from two to one — and at every interaction strength it equals, exactly, the occupation of the bonding natural orbital.

Four centres, and the pair that will not localise

The occupied orbitals of a molecule can be mixed freely without changing anything observable, and the freedom is usually spent on making them as local as possible. For the methyllithium tetramer the answer is four centres — one carbon and the three lithiums of the face it caps — and no mixing of the four pairs reduces it.

Strong outside, weak inside. The bond orders along each chain. A three-centre system has two equal bonds of 0.707 — not the one half the electron count suggests — and every longer chain alternates, strong at the ends and weak in the middle. The spread grows with the chain: 3:0.000, 5:0.211, 7:0.271, 9:0.296. Nothing here is about iodine.

Hypervalency does not stop at three centres

The three-centre four-electron bond is written up everywhere as an arrangement peculiar to hypervalent molecules. It is the first member of a family — five centres and six electrons, seven and eight — and the family predicts alternating bond strengths that the polyiodide crystal structures have.

Two is the ordinary answer, and one is a different kind of correlation. The local exponent of the correlation energy in the repulsion, against the repulsion, for three systems at half filling. The two closed-shell systems tend to two as the repulsion vanishes, which is ordinary perturbation theory. The ring of four tends to one, at repulsions fifty times smaller than the hopping.

A third kind of correlation

The two-site model gave an exact identity — the power of the correlation energy in the repulsion equals the occupation of the bonding natural orbital — and asked whether anything like it survives with more orbitals. It does not, and the way it fails is better than the identity was: a ring of four gives a power of one where every closed-shell system gives two, at repulsions fifty times weaker than the hopping, because its reference was never a single state.

The two figures, per electron. For each ring, the delocalisation energy against isolated double bonds and against the same ring with one bond deleted, divided by the number of pi electrons. The upper bar of each pair is the usual reference; the lower one is the cycle's own contribution, and the two are nowhere proportional.

A stabilisation is measured from somewhere

Benzene's delocalisation energy is 2β against three isolated double bonds and 1.0121β against the same six carbons with one bond deleted. Cyclobutadiene's is exactly zero against the first reference and −0.4721β against the second, so one of the two references records the most famously destabilised ring in the subject as neutral.

The error, against the repulsion it is an error about. The energy a mean field misses, for two electron counts on 4 sites, against the strength of the repulsion. Each is a straight line at large repulsion and the dashed line through it is not a fit: its slope is the count of coincidences a uniform density forces, computed from the electron number and the site number alone.

A mean field cannot get out of the way

The energy a mean field misses grows without limit as the repulsion rises — 27.82 at U = 32 for four electrons on four sites, against an exact energy of −0.2946, so the error is ninety-four times the answer. The rate it grows at is not an energy at all: it is n²/4N, a count of the coincidences a spread-out density cannot avoid.

The reference decides the correlation

The correlation energy of one exact state, measured against two references that are both called Hartree–Fock, is −27.82 and −0.107 at the same repulsion — a factor of 259, on a system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below the instability at U = 2 the two agree to the last bit; above it one grows without limit while the other falls, and the reference that reports almost no correlation has ⟨S²⟩ = 1.99 where a singlet is zero.

Four, however many ligands there are. For each molecule, the number of ligand σ combinations that find a partner among the central atom's four s and p orbitals, against the number of ligands and lone pairs it has. The matched count rises along the diagonal and then stops at four, because there are four orbitals; everything above the ceiling is a pair with nowhere on the central atom to go, and that is what the word hypervalent names.

Four is all that s and p can match

Reduce the ligand σ set of ten molecules in each one's own point group and ask how many of its components transform as one of the central atom's four valence orbitals. The answer is never more than four — not by arrangement, in every geometry from linear to octahedral — and what is left over is n + L − 4, with exactly twice that many electrons in excess of an octet.

How many centres, by two measures that do not agree. For each of eight systems, the number of atoms one localised pair has real amplitude on, and its participation number — which weights those atoms by how much of the pair each holds. Where the sharing is even the two coincide; where it is not they differ by more than a whole centre, and that gap is what electron deficiency looks like from the inside. one of the systems has more than one localisation, so for it neither number is an answer.

One scale, from two centres to a cage

How many centres a pair of electrons holds together is two different numbers, and they separate exactly where the bonding is most deficient: the methyllithium tetramer's pairs sit on four atoms each and have a participation number of 2.54. Run the same measurement up the scale and the twelve-vertex borane refuses it — its localisation has at least ten maxima differing by six parts in a thousand, so the number of centres is not an output for it at all.

How many descriptions a cage has

A localisation is a maximisation, and running it once reports the maximum it reached rather than the maximum there is. Run to exhaustion on a twelve-vertex borane it finds ten answers and then three batches of twelve starts in a row that find nothing new — and none of the ten is another one seen from a different side, because a symmetry of the cage cannot change a multiset of participation numbers and all ten multisets differ.

Where the orphan pair actually sits. A σ-only Hückel model of each molecule, built from its own coordinates: the central atom's four valence orbitals, one σ orbital on each ligand, and the coupling between them the direction cosine of that ligand. Lone pairs need no special handling — they come out of the diagonalisation as the central orbitals no ligand combination transforms like. The charge is measured rather than assigned, and PF₅ comes out with two kinds of fluorine at 3 at -0.13 and 2 at -0.3, the more charged pair being the axial one that carries the orphan.

The count is the population

The census counted how many ligand combinations have no partner on the central atom and called the count n + L − 4. A σ-only model built from each molecule's own coordinates says what that count is worth: with no electronegativity difference anywhere, the mean charge on a ligand is minus the orphan count divided by the ligand count, exactly, in all ten cases. And the prediction the census made — that the charge grows with the orphan count — is refused by the divisor.

Four bonds, or one a₁ and three t₂. The same four occupied orbitals written in two bases. On the left each orbital sits on one bond; on the right one is shared over all four hydrogens and three follow the Cartesian directions. The transformation between them is orthogonal, so the density is unchanged.

The answer a search is most likely to give

If a cage has ten equally good localised descriptions, why does the literature agree about its picture? The hoped-for answer was that one basin is very large. Counting four hundred and eighty starting points says it is not: two independent searches agree one time in ten, and the description they most often return is not the best one.

Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything

A correlation energy is an exact energy less a mean-field one, so the answer depends on which mean field was picked — by a factor of 259. The pair distribution says the same thing with no subtraction in it, and two systems matched to the same correlation energy turn out to have electrons in visibly different places.

The even sharer is the one the repulsion likes least. trigonal bipyramid: 2 kinds of ligand, spread 0.1137, repulsion 6.4747; square pyramid: 2 kinds of ligand, spread 0.1658, repulsion 6.4844; pentagonal planar: 1 kind of ligand, spread 0.0000, repulsion 6.8819. The planar arrangement gives all five ligands exactly the same charge and costs 6.3 per cent more in repulsion than the bipyramid, which is the arrangement chemistry actually adopts — so the two models disagree about which arrangement is preferred, and about how much charge is moved.

Two models that disagree about the shape

The identity says how much charge a hypervalent molecule's ligands must share and nothing about how. Working out which arrangement shares it most evenly puts the σ model and the repulsion model on one axis for the first time: the even sharer is the pentagonal plane, which is the arrangement the repulsion likes least — and along the interchange chemistry actually uses, one model sees 0.15 per cent of a change and the other sees 54.

The same hole, priced three ways. The correlation hole of a ring of 6 at a repulsion of 8, weighted by three interactions. With an on-site interaction the answer is 100 per cent at separation zero — as an identity, since the interaction is zero everywhere else. With one that reaches a neighbour, the enhancement at separation one costs rather than pays, and gives back 44.0 per cent of the on-site saving; with a Coulomb tail, 46.9. Everything beyond one neighbour is worth under a twentieth of the on-site term.

Half of it is given back at one bond

The correlation hole of a ring removes 1.2653 pairs from zero separation and puts 1.1126 of them one site away. With an on-site repulsion that second number costs nothing, because the interaction is zero there — but with anything that reaches a neighbour it costs 44 per cent of what the hole saved, and with a Coulomb tail 46.9.

Ten molecules, twenty-six arrangements, three disagreements. Every arrangement of every one of the ten molecules, with the point group recovered from the arrangement's own coordinates and the ligand σ set reduced in it. 27 of them can be worked in a tabulated group; the formula n + L − 4 is right for 23 and wrong for 4. Every failure is a planar arrangement of four or more ligands, and every one of them is a molecule that does not adopt that arrangement.

The square that wastes an orbital

The orphan count that prices hypervalency was treated as a property of a molecule's composition — ligands plus lone pairs minus four. Run on twenty-six arrangements of the same ten molecules it is right for twenty-three and wrong for three, and all three are flat. A planar arrangement gives a main-group centre three usable orbitals rather than four, so the count is a property of the shape.

The count is a curve, and the curve flattens. How many distinct localised descriptions of a twelve-vertex cage had been found after each batch, out of 4,000 random starts. The last new one appears at start 124; the remaining 3,876 add nothing. The dashed curve is what the basin sizes measured here predict — the chance of having hit each description at least once — and it is a closed form rather than a fit to the points.

Where the count stops being an effort

A cage's localised descriptions were counted by a search that stopped when it stopped finding new ones, which makes the count a property of the stopping rule. Run to four thousand starts the count is fourteen and the last new description appears at start 124 — after which three thousand eight hundred and seventy-six starts add nothing. The four rarest are found six times in a thousand, which is what says nothing rarer is hiding.

A ring of 6 as the neighbour repulsion is turned up. At an on-site repulsion of 8, three quantities against the nearest-neighbour repulsion: the alternating structure factor, the double occupancy, and the nearest-neighbour opposite-spin pair distribution. The rise is steepest at V = 4.5, which is 0.563 times the on-site repulsion. Far past it the ring is charge ordered — nearly every electron paired on alternate sites, which is what a double occupancy approaching a half means.

The give-back that turned into a saving

Take a wavefunction optimised for an on-site repulsion, weight its correlation hole with an interaction that reaches one neighbour, and the enhancement at one bond gives back forty-four per cent of the on-site saving. Putting that neighbour term into the Hamiltonian and solving exactly does not shrink the give-back. It reverses its sign.

Three shapes from one search

A cage's fourteen localised descriptions fell into two groups with a factor of five between them and nothing in the gap, which made counting the big basins look like a stopping rule. Two more cases from the same family give a smooth tail over sixty-three descriptions and a single basin holding ninety-eight per cent. One search, one family, three shapes.

The repulsion against the count, and they do not sort together. Every arrangement of the census by how many ligand σ combinations are left without a central partner and by how far its ligand repulsion sits above the best arrangement of that many points. The three that break the formula are marked. They are not the expensive ones: they sit at 4.2, 6.3, 9.8 per cent while the arrangements the formula gets right run to 26.5.

Expensive is not the same as unadopted

A counting formula right for twenty-three arrangements and wrong for three invites a reading: the failures are the arrangements nothing adopts, so the formula is reliable because chemistry stays away from where it breaks. Put the repulsion energy on the same axis and the reading fails — the most expensive arrangement in the census is one the formula gets right.

Fifty descriptions of one molecule

A search whose largest basin takes ninety-eight per cent of its starts will report one description however long it is run, and nobody runs four thousand starts when the first fifty agree. Whether the rare ones are worse descriptions or merely rarer is one number per description, already computed and never looked at. On two of three cages they are not worse — they are the same answer, to parts per million.

$One sign change is a root and the other is not. The solved give-back against the neighbour repulsion on a ring of 6 at U = 8. It crosses zero at V = 3.895, where the price of everything beyond contact really is nothing, and changes sign again at V = 4.159, where the quantity it is a fraction of has vanished instead. The curve is broken at the second because it is an asymptote and not a crossing; four of the 12 points fall outside the band drawn here.$

A sign change is not always a zero

The solved give-back changes sign somewhere between a neighbour repulsion of two and one of four, and a bisection looks like the way to find the value where the structure beyond contact contributes exactly nothing. It changes sign twice. One crossing is that value; at the other the quantity the fraction is a fraction of has vanished instead, and a bisection reports the two in identical words.

One steps, the other slides — and the step is at the far end. The repulsion energy and the orphan count along the path from a tetrahedron to a square plane. The energy rises smoothly and monotonically, lowest at the tetrahedron and highest at the plane. The count is zero everywhere — including at 89.99° — and becomes one only at 90° exactly. The step is not near the energy's minimum; it is at its maximum, and it is at a single point.

A count that changes at one point

Where does the orphan count step along a distortion, relative to where the energy's minimum sits? A rule that depends on an exact symmetry may have no answer for a real molecule. On the path from a tetrahedron to a square plane the count is the same at every angle up to 89.99° and changes only at 90° exactly — which is the energy's maximum, not its minimum, and a single geometry out of a continuum.

How many descriptions, against how much they differ. Every cage-and-filling pair, by the number of distinct descriptions its localisation finds and by how far apart they are in the functional. If the count measured ambiguity the points would rise from left to right. The case with the most descriptions — 44 of them — has a spread of two parts in a hundred thousand, and sits at the bottom right.

Counting was right except where it mattered

A cage whose localisation gives dozens of descriptions that are all the same answer raises a worry: if degeneracy is common across the family, counting descriptions is the wrong measure of ambiguity. Across forty-eight cage-and-filling pairs it is the right measure on eleven of the thirteen that have anything to count — and it fails on the one leaned on hardest.

The energy runs the whole way; the count exists at the two ends. The Coulomb repulsion of six ligands along the Bailar twist, from the trigonal prism at 0° to the octahedron at 60°, with the geometries that have an orphan count marked underneath. The energy is smooth and monotone, lowest at the octahedron. The count is defined at the two ends and at the handful of angles the symmetry finder rounds into them, and nowhere else — not because the geometry is unsymmetrical, but because its group is not tabulated.

The group nobody wrote a table for

The orphan count is predicted to be constant along the Bailar twist, because the twist keeps D3 the whole way. The premise is exactly right — at every angle strictly between the prism and the octahedron the symmetry finder assembles six operations that hold to four parts in 10¹⁶. The conclusion cannot be tested here, because a count is a reduction, and the calculation's nineteen character tables did not include D3.

The same number, in three different groups, all the way along. The orphan count along the Bailar twist once the D3 character table is written. It is 2 at every one of the 15 geometries the symmetry finder answers for, across D3h at the prism, D3 through the whole interior and Oh at the octahedron. The lower row shows what the same sweep gave before the table existed: two ends and nothing between. This constancy was predicted from the premise that the twist keeps D3 throughout, and the premise was right.

The count the table was hiding

The interior of the Bailar twist looks uncountable — exactly D3 at every angle, and D3 is a point group whose character table is rarely written out. Writing it takes nine lines and settles the prediction made for the path: the orphan count is two at every geometry on the path that can be answered, in three different groups, out of three different decompositions.

Both criteria leave a gap, and Boys leaves a chasm. Every non-zero relative spread under each criterion, on one logarithmic axis, with the largest empty stretch shaded. Pipek–Mezey's runs a factor of 206; Boys's runs 2.8e+7 — seven decades, from numerical zero to a real spread with nothing between. So the bimodality belongs to the cages rather than to the functional, and under the second criterion the threshold matters even less.

A second criterion left a gap too

The localisation spreads are bimodal — an empty factor of two hundred around the degeneracy threshold — and the gap might belong to the criterion rather than to the cages. Boys localisation leaves a gap of seven decades on the same forty-eight pairs, so it belongs to the cages. But the two criteria disagree about six of them, in both directions, and the family's most ambiguous cage under one is exactly degenerate under the other.

Six pairs off the diagonal, and every one of them on an axis. Each cage-and-filling pair's Pipek–Mezey spread against its Boys spread, both logarithmic, with the two thresholds drawn. Agreements sit in the two opposite corners: spreads that are zero in both, or large in both. The six disagreements do not sit between them — they sit on the axes, with one coordinate at the floor. A criterion-dependent cage is not one the two criteria half-agree about; it is one where the difference between its descriptions is invisible to one of them entirely.

The cage is on both sides

Two localisation criteria classify six cage-and-filling pairs differently, and a symmetry explanation for the six is the natural first guess. The icosahedron's graph has a hundred and twenty automorphisms, the most in the family, and supplies three of the six disagreements and nine of the agreements. What the six do have in common is sharper than a symmetry: in every one, one criterion's spread is not small but zero.

The leftover changes sides

A main-group centre brings four valence orbitals against six ligand combinations, so two are orphaned. A transition metal brings nine, so the arithmetic inverts and three metal orbitals are left instead — three at every geometry of the Bailar twist, out of decompositions that share no species. Run past the whole arrangement census, exactly one arrangement orphans anything at a metal, and it needs an f orbital to fix.

Eighteen paths, two hundred and seventy geometries, one gap. Every one-parameter path between two arrangements of the same ligand count, each sampled at 15 geometries, with each geometry coloured by whether its group is named and tabulated, refused by the finder's tolerance, or a finite group with no table. The one gap is a group of order 10 at the pentagonal-pyramidal end of two paths — C5v, which no table here reaches. The path with a linear end is excluded, since a continuous group is declined deliberately rather than missing.

The gap found on purpose

A twist between two coordination arrangements passes through a point group with no character table among the twenty in use, and that was found by accident. Running every path between the arrangements — eighteen of them, two hundred and seventy geometries — finds exactly one more gap, at a group of order ten. It also finds something the search was not looking for: a group without a table had been reported as an infinite group.

Six disagreements and three calculations

Two localisation criteria classified six of the family's forty-eight cage-and-filling pairs differently, and three of the six were consecutive fillings of one icosahedron with spreads identical to three figures. They are not three coincidences and not one degeneracy being filled: they are one calculation, because the survey's forty-eight rows are thirty-three distinct questions.

The boundary falls inside a shell, and the shell has no inside. The 12-vertex cage at 10 electrons: its Hückel levels, with each degenerate shell drawn as its members and the occupied ones filled. The occupied set takes 2 of the 5 members of one shell — and the members of a degenerate shell are not distinguishable. Whichever combinations the eigenvalue routine happened to return are the ones that get occupied, so the density being localised is a choice made by a diagonaliser rather than a property of the cage.

The basis a diagonaliser happened to return

Six of the cage family's thirty-three inputs have their occupied set cut through the middle of a degenerate shell, and the members of a degenerate shell are interchangeable. Re-orienting the shell changes nothing about the cage, the filling or the criterion — and it moves the best localisation functional by up to twenty-one per cent, moves the count of descriptions from ten to fourteen, and flips the degeneracy label on three of the six.

$Angular rings leave the heteroatom's own ring alone and scale the rest. Each ring's response as a fraction of the straight chain's, with the heteroatom on ring 0 and the first one, two, four or ten interior rings angularly fused, on a logarithmic axis. The heteroatom's ring stays within one and a half per cent in every case. The rings beyond the angular fusions fall, to under half by the third ring once two are angular, and to between an eighth and a third along the fully angular chain, alternating from ring to ring.$

An angular ring rescales what lies beyond it

A heteroatom's influence along a chain of fused rings decays with a length near 0.7 rings, and one bend was found to change almost nothing. Counted properly, that bend was two angular rings, and counting angular rings one at a time shows what they do: the heteroatom's own ring never moves by more than one and a half per cent, the rings beyond angular fusions fall to between an eighth and a half of their response — or rise by up to two fifths — and the decay length changes by a tenth.

Folding the ring off its plane never gives the orbital back. For rings of four to eight ligands round a centre with no lone pair, the orphan count minus the formula n + L − 4, at polar angles from 60° to 120°. The upper dot in each row is the bare ring and the lower the same ring with a ligand on the axis. The bare ring is one over the formula at every angle, including 90°, where the ring is flat and its group is D₄ₕ, D₅ₕ or D₆ₕ; there is no table here for D₇ₕ or D₈ₕ. The capped ring agrees with the formula at every angle, 90° included, where the ring is exactly flat and the apex alone keeps its group C₄ᵥ to C₈ᵥ.

Folding the ring does not give the orbital back

Three arrangements break the orphan count n + L − 4, all flat, and the reason given was flatness: the p orbital perpendicular to the ring has no ligand combination of its species. Fold the ring into an umbrella at any angle and that orbital becomes totally symmetric — and the count stays wrong by exactly one, for rings of four to eight. The ring offers one symmetric combination to a centre with two symmetric orbitals. Writing C₅ᵥ to see it also counts the pentagonal pyramid at last, and the formula holds there.

All essays