CZ Talk:Chemistry Workgroup: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>William Weaver No edit summary |
imported>Robert Tito mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
My question is this: Should '''''General Chemistry''''' considered a subgroup of chemistry or just foundational vocabulary and concepts of the other sub-groups? --[[User:William Weaver|William Weaver]] 08:37, 22 November 2006 (CST) | My question is this: Should '''''General Chemistry''''' considered a subgroup of chemistry or just foundational vocabulary and concepts of the other sub-groups? --[[User:William Weaver|William Weaver]] 08:37, 22 November 2006 (CST) | ||
In many instances you see Analytical Chemistry and Anorganic Chemistry put together and abbreviated to AA-Chemistry. To call it general chemistry would be one bridge too far even though the argument seems logical. How do the others feel about it? [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] 19:09, 1 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 20:09, 1 February 2007
Analytical Chemistry is often referred to by students as "General Chemistry on Steroids". But then again, Inorganic Chemistry is the study of the rest of the periodic table other than primarily carbon-based molecules.
My question is this: Should General Chemistry considered a subgroup of chemistry or just foundational vocabulary and concepts of the other sub-groups? --William Weaver 08:37, 22 November 2006 (CST)
In many instances you see Analytical Chemistry and Anorganic Chemistry put together and abbreviated to AA-Chemistry. To call it general chemistry would be one bridge too far even though the argument seems logical. How do the others feel about it? Robert Tito 19:09, 1 February 2007 (CST)