OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Pericyclic reactions

Pericyclic reactions are one of the three major classes of organic reactions, along with polar/ionic reactions and radical reactions. Pericyclic reactions have been understood only relatively recently compared to the other classes.
In a polar/ionic reaction, one reactant (the nucleophile) donates two electrons to another (the electrophile) to form a bond. In a radical reaction, each reactant donates one electron. In a pericyclic reaction, only the π bond electrons are involved, and all bonds are changed in a single cyclic step without any intermediates being formed.
Using the Diels-Alder reaction as an example, pushing arrows are used to show electron flow, but they are drawn in a circle, and the direction of the arrows can arbitrarily be shown as clockwise or anticlockwise. All the bonds are made and broken in a single step. This is called a concerted reaction.
The types of pericyclic reactions are:
* Cycloadditions (including the Diels-Alder reaction)
* Electrocyclic reactions
* Sigmatropic rearrangements
See also the Wikipedia article about pericyclic reactions.
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Polar and radical reactions

<< Overview of reactions | Redox reactions >>

### Homolytic vs heterolytic cleavage

Two bonded atoms can come apart from each other in one of two ways. Either
* each atom gets away with half of the shared electrons, or
* one of the atoms leaves with more of the shared electrons than the other.
In homolytic cleavage, each atom leaves with one-half of the shared electrons (one electron for a single bond, or two for double bonds).
A—B → A* + B*
A* and B* represent uncharged radicals. The "*" represents an unbonded, unpaired valence electron.
In heterolytic cleavage, one atom leaves with all of the previously shared electrons and the other atom gets none of them.
A—B → A$^−$ + B$^+$
Homo (from the Greek for same) indicates that each atom leaves with the same number of electrons from the bond. Hetero (from the Greek for different) refers to the fact that one atom gets all of the bonding electrons, while the other gets none.

## Polar reactions

Polar reactions occur when two bonded atoms come apart, one taking more of the shared electrons than the other. They involve heterolytic cleavage. The result is two charged species—one cation and one anion.

## Radical reactions

Radical reactions don't deal with charged particles but with radicals. Radicals are uncharged atoms or molecules with an incomplete octet of valence electrons.
When a molecule comes apart by homolytic cleavage the result is two radicals. Although uncharged, radicals are usually very reactive because the unfilled octet is unstable and the radical can lower its energy by forming a bond in a way that allows it to fill its valence shell while avoiding any electrostatic charge..
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Oxymercuration/demercuration

Oxymercuration is a process by which water is added to an alkene through treatment of the alkene with mercury(II) acetate [Hg(O$_2$CCH$_3$)$_2$, usually abbreviated Hg(OAc)$_2$] in an aqueous tetrahydrofuran (THF) solvent. Rarely this reaction is referred to as Oxymercuration/reduction. This reaction looks just like Markovnikov. addition of water across a double bond, however there is no carbocation intermediate, so there is no rearrangement. You will learn that NaBH$_4$ is a common reducing agent.

## Equations

* Addition of water by oxymercuration
* 1. Hg(OAc)$_2$, H$_2$O/THF
* H$_2$C=CH$_2$ --------------> H$_3$C-CH$_2$OH
* 2. NaBH$_4$
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Radicals
## Radical stability

* Radicals listed from less to more stable
* F° < Cl° < Br° < I°
* F° is totally unstable while I° is generally unreactive.
Alkyl groups vary in stability. CH$_3$° is quite reactive as it violates the octet rule. However, CH$_3$$^+$ is also a charged moiety and is therefore even less stable and harder to form.
* Alkyl groups listed from less to more stable
* CH$_3$° < 1° < 2° < 3°
* Clearly, the tertiary carbocation is the most stable, as it is surrounded by three other carbon atoms that share the burden of its positive charge.
(Multiple images follow)
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Oxidation reactions
## Intro to oxidation reactions

Oxidation reactions involve electron loss in the moeity of interest. When iron rusts, iron atoms lose electrons to oxygen molecules, and is said to undergo oxidation.

## Ozonolysis

This is one of the simplest and easiest reaction mechanisms to learn. In ozonolysis, a carbon-carbon double bond is split in two by reaction with ozone. The two products, which can be aldehydes or ketones, each have one oxygen atom double bonded to each of the two carbons that had made up the double bond. The ozone (O$_3$) cuts right thru the carbon-carbon double bond and leaves oxygens double bonded to the two newly severed ends.
* Ozonolysis
* C=C O$_3$/→ molozanide → ozonide Zn/→ C=O + O=C
that is,
* C=C O$_3$/→ 2C=O

## Osmylation

In this reaction, a carbon-carbon double bond turns into a single bond with one hydroxy group attached to each of the two carbons.
When heated, this product splits into two ketones (each of the two carbons ends up double bonded to the oxygen in the hydroxy group).

## Epoxidation (peroxidation)

This reaction uses peroxides (an oxide with an extra linked oxygen) to produce epoxides.
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Reactions

    Alkanes
       Combustion
       Free-radical halogenation
    Alkenes
       Hydrogenation adds H$_2$
       Hydrolysis adds H$_2$O
       Oxymercuration/demercuration
       THF
       Halogenation adds halogen
       Hydrohalogenation adds H and a halogen
       Hydroboration
       Halohydrins
       Oxidation reactions
       Allylic bromination
       Diels-Alder reaction
    Alkynes
       Hydrogenation adds H
       Hydration adds OH
       Halogenation adds a halogen
       Hydrohalogenation adds H and a halogen
       Ozonolysis
       Alkylation
    Alcohols and haloalkanes
       Carbocation rearrangements
       Conjugated (1,3-) dienes
       Direct (1,2-) and conjugate (1,4-) addition
       Kinetic and thermodynamic control
    Aromatic compounds
       Hydrogenation
       Benzylic bromination
       Benzylic oxydation
       Vinylic benzenes
Added links
* Review of nucleophilic substitution SN1, SN2
* Radicals
* Electrophilic additions
* Reactions with organometallic reagents
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Ozonolysis

Ozonolysis is the process in which you treat an alkene or alkyne with ozone (O3). Ozone will attack a C=C (or a triple bond between carbons) and cleave it, leaving 2 areas that are slightly electropositive, oxygens will quickly bond to these carbons, and the end structure now has 2 Oxygens doubly bonded to 2 carbons.
# Organic Chemistry/Introduction to reactions/Reactions with organometallic reagents

Organometallic compounds are organic substances which contain bonds between carbon to metallic elements. Common metals found in organometallic compounds are Na, K, Li, Mg, and B.
Formation of organometalic reagents: R-X + 2M -> R-M +MX
* Organolithium, organosodium and organopotassium
* Organo-magnesium: Grignard reagents RMgX
* Transition-metal organometallics
** organo-molybdenum and tungsten: metathesis catalysts
** organo-titanium: Tebbe's reagent
** organo-iron: Collman's reagent
(This is obviously in very early draft form...)
# Historical Rhetorics/Sophists Old and New/Scott, Robert L. "Non-Discipline as a Remedy for Rhetoric? A Reply to Victor Vitanza."
## Scott, Robert L. "Non-Discipline as a Remedy for Rhetoric? A Reply to Victor Vitanza." Rhetoric Review 6.1 (Spring 1988): 233-237.

Scott’s reply to Vitanza is a very well-written and subtle form of praise, criticism, and slight deprecation, much in the flavor of how Socrates “praises” Isocrates in the Pheadrus; which is to say the reader is left wondering exactly what the relationship really is. Scott opens quickly by calling Vitanza a “post-modern, rhetorical provocateur” (234) which is not unlike saying he is young, “but nature…has placed the love of wisdom in his mind” (Plato 555). He appreciates (?) the jovial nature with which Vitanza writes and which prevents the critic from pinning him down, and remarks “He’s right even when he’s wrong. That is the beauty and benefit of being provocative” (Scott 234). Scott offers explicit warnings of Vitanza's micro- and metalinguistic focus (while deftly bring in a medical metaphor) by noting “a good deal of unease if not disease in the intellectualizing we undertake in the name of all sorts of disciplines and desires” (235), even while appreciating that there is value in questioning the role of Plato et al. in how we define rhetoric. Scott seems to mostly question what is better for the future of rhetoric, word-play and an attack on philosophy or taking a more practical and easier-to-follow intersubjective approach to the question.
# Historical Rhetorics/Sophists Old and New/Vitanza, Victor J. “The Included Third: The Death of Rhetoric and History and the Sophists, and their Rebirth in the Sign of a ‘Third Sophistic.’”

The Third Sophistic is an attempt to move beyond the first two Sophistics. The complication here is that the three do not follow sequentially; the third is in no way an extension of the prior lines of reasoning. Vitanza begins this chapter with an assessment of Edward Schiappa’s claim that defining “the sophists” is impossible. According to Vitanza creating this set of criteria is not only impossible – it’s unnecessary. Defining anything in Schiappa’s Genus-Species method is problematic for Vitanza in that drawing those lines of distinction causes scholars/publics to “other” those that don’t fit the category (negative essentializing). These excluded subjects are silenced by the practice of creating defining characteristics. Vitanza seeks to avoid a differend, or “the using of rules and regimens proper to one party and not the other, and using them as a means of excluding the other,” (45).
A second major point of contention for the author is the hypocrisy of Schiappa’s method/ology. He argues, “Though Schiappa says that the Sophists and their rhetoric are both ‘a fiction, originally invented by Plato for his own ends’ (16), Schiappa, nonetheless goes on to use the very in/terror/gating method,” (46). However Vitanza blames neither the rhetoric nor the Sophist, but the Platonic concept, which he believes is a negative essentializing methodology. The quote in the previous paragraph illustrates one of Vitanza’s key stylistic traits. The author sprinkles creative language throughout his work. He combines, deconstructs, reconstructs, and bastardizes words in every paragraph. It sometimes serves to make the reader think about the meaning of terms. Other times it seems like Vitanza is trying to show off. At least once every other page he comes off as a pompous scholar with too much free time, but he seems keenly aware of this fact. It’s almost as if he knows what he is doing with this writing stuff.
Vitanza,Victor. “The Included Third: The Death of Rhetoric and History and the Sophists, and their Rebirth in the Sign of a ‘Third Sophistic.’” Negation, Subjectivity and The History of Rhetoric. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. 44-51. Print.
# Historical Rhetorics/Sophists Old and New/Wick, Audrey. “The Feminist Sophistic Enterprise: From Euripides to the Vietnam War.”

Wick, Audrey. “The Feminist Sophistic Enterprise: From Euripides to the Vietnam War.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 22.1 (1992): 27-38.
Wick argues that the disruption of both the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greek society and the Vietnam War in American society created the space for cultural change, opening “questions about the status of citizenship, economic privilege, family life, and, of course, gender roles” (27). Cultural change, endorsed by those who have been excluded and resisted by those who fear the loss of privilege, can be achieved through sophistic methods that enable the marginalized to question the dominant through “the discovery and exposition” of dissoi logoi, or opposing arguments (27). Wick argues that a feminist sophistic speaks “from and for a political community,” as the first sophists did, and is therefore best able to address the need for diverse interpretations of gender roles and family dynamics (37). For Wick, the tragedian Euripides provides examples of a feminist sophistic through his plays, where his characters face agonizing choices and alternate mythologies allow him to question the nature of men, women, honor, and war, critiquing society often through a feminine voice. The original sophistic project was replaced by the “monolithic patriarchal certainty of Plato and Aristotle,” but Wick seeks to prevent such a closure in our post-Vietnam society by encouraging the use of sophistic methods to keep pluralistic arguments and questions about the nature of gender roles open (27).
# Historical Rhetorics/The Big Aristotle/Berlin, James A. "Aristotle's Rhetoric in Context: Interpreting Historically."
## Berlin, James A. "Aristotle's Rhetoric in Context: Interpreting Historically." A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Eds. Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1992. 55-65

In order to explain why there are so many differing, even contradictory, readings of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Berlin attempts to historically locate Rhetoric and to provide it with a more accurate context in which it was created. Berlin’s aim is not to contest the importance of Rhetoric, but instead to offer up Aristotle’s contemporary sociopolitical context as an explanation for its divergent modern interpretations.
Basically Berlin makes the argument that so many different perspectives are able to make a claim on Rhetoric as a source document because it represents Aristotle’s own “attempts to address the political conflicts of his own divided age” (55). As far as historical context (the title for the second section of the article), Berlin offers a portrait of Athens in the 4th Century as a nation-state in the midst of “continuous turbulence” (57) dominated by social inequity, numerous military defeats, multiple attempted oligarchian revolts, and finally the conquering of Athens by the Macedonians. These intense social conflicts were almost exclusively fought out in the assembly, “unquestionably the centers of political power” in Athens where “rhetorical accomplishment the first requirement for success” (57).
Writing to these conditions of social conflict, Berlin sees Rhetoric as Aristotle’s attempt to walk a middle ground between his own elitist tendencies and a more open democratic vision embraced by the disenfranchised majority. Of course, Berlin is quick to acknowledge that this effort is largely a failure and that, ““This mediation, however, is not achieved, so that Aristotle remains committed to an elitist politics while offering enough contradictory concessions to the democratic polis to give support to those who later appropriate him in the service of an egalitarian rhetoric” (56). As proof Berlin offers an examination of the relationship between the definitions of rhetoric and the supporting “proofs” where rhetoric’s definition (“invention – discovering – is made the center of rhetoric” [Berlin 60]) represents Aristotle’s privileging of the elite and educated classes while the “proofs” on ethos and pathos represent a sort of appeasement (or pandering to) towards the lower classes. Aristotle’s seemingly constant flip-flopping between the importance of logic or ethos/pathos is thus seen as “Aristotle’s attempt to address the class conflicts of his time, conflicts that represent important ideological differences” (62).
Because of Aristotle’s own contemporary “bi-polar” historical context, it should be expected (Berlin supposes) that Rhetoric should be utilized in such a “bi-polar” fashion today.
# Historical Rhetorics/The Big Aristotle/Clayton, Edward W. "The Audience for Aristotle's Rhetoric."

Clayton, Edward W. "The Audience for Aristotle's Rhetoric." Rhetorica 22 (2004): 183-203.
Edward Clayton attempts to make a claim of single, unified audience for Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Clayton’s article assesses the “four main claims concerning the audience Aristotle intended to receive the Rhetoric” (203). He examines the support for Rhetoric being directed toward Athenian legislators, the Athenian public (or an “elite subset of the public” (183)), Aristotle’s own students, or a variety of audiences (based on the hypothesis that Rhetoric was not written as a unified work).
Calling on statements in Rhetoric, Ethics and Politics, as well as historical data, Clayton asserts that he can disprove three theories of audience and concludes that the most likely audience is Aristotle’s students. This inference is based a great deal on challenging the support provided by scholars for the other three audiences. Clayton points out that Aristotle held a seemingly negative view of Athenian legislators and public (intellectually) and held a clear notion of an ideal city (which he felt Athens was not), thus disproving the idea that Aristotle would be writing to these groups. Similarly, Clayton finds the historical data supporting Rhetoric being written at a variety of times for a variety of audiences spotty and inconclusive. Ultimately, Clayton concludes that the most likely audience of Rhetoric was the students under Aristotle’s guidance, as they would have been the most capable of following “Aristotle’s methods and conceptual language” (200).
# Historical Rhetorics/Sophists Old and New/Vitanza, Victor J. "Critical Sub/Versions of the History of Philosophical Rhetoric."

Vitanza, Victor J. "Critical Sub/versions of the History of Philosophical Rhetoric."Rhetoric Review 6.1 (1987): 41-66.
Vitanza creates a critical charge for a “post-philosophical Rhetoric” (which is at once nondisciplinary and “the grandest of all mega-sciences or mega-disciplines” [41-42]) by way of metaphorically rendering the privileging of Philosophy in relation to Rhetoric as a “logico-philosophical (meta)disciplinary” (48) infection which Plato Aristotle are responsible for. The ‘Antibody Rhetoric’ which Vitanza incites, that resists Philo-logical primacy of Classical Rhetoric in favor of a “Poetics of Rhetoric” (43), is a described as part of a set of “evolutions of Sophistic Rhetoric” (53). Vitanza’s nondisciplinary ‘Antibody Rhetoric’, as part of “The Third Sophistic” (citing Jarrett 45), acknowledges the “power of the bewitchment of language” (46) and embraces the practical value/use of metaphor and irony in order to “wage a kind of guerilla warfare conducted by the margins, that will function as a de/stabilizing principle … or a dis/stabilizing principle … in the writings of our “newer” histories” (52) which could take the form of “curative fictions” (56). By aligning his 'Antibody Rhetoric' (which isn’t the real name for his ideal Rhetoric, but rather a way of referring to its function [the Rhetoric Vitanza envisions cannot be named because “Platonism and Aristotelianism, old or new, would not allow for it” [42]) to Sophistic Rhetoric, Vitanza sketches out a space and working definition for Sophism that is Platonically immune where Sophism takes an opposite stance to “logophilia” (quoting Pierrsens 48). In this light, Sophism is defined by its appreciation of the playful, the expressive, and the poetic, as opposed to the philological.
# Pinyin/Smartphone

Search Pinyin smartphone
Search Pinyin phone
A smartphone is a mobile phone that can do more than other phones. They work as a computer but are mobile devices small enough to fit in a user's hand.
smartphone shih 1-zhoong bii yiban dianhuah yohngtur gehngduo d shoouji. ta yoou diannaao d gongnerng dahn tiiji xiaao rur shoouji.
# Pinyin/Smell

See also
Smell is the sense of odor. The sense of smell is how a human or animal notices a smell by using the nose. Many animals have better noses than people. Some animals can detect small particles in the air, such as water, that people cannot.
Xiùjué shì qìwèi de gǎnjué, shì rén huò dòngwù yòng bízi biànbié qìwèi. Xǔduō dòngwù de bízi bǐ rén hǎo. Yǒuxiē dòngwù néng wéndào kōngqì zhōng de wēilì, lìrú shuǐ, ér rénlèi bùnéng.
# Pinyin/Smaller

See also
# Pinyin/Smallpox

Smallpox is an acute contagious disease, caused by the variola virus. It is transmitted from person to person via infected aerosols and droplets from infected symptomatic people.
Symptoms appear 12–14 days after infection, and include fever, malaise, headache, prostration, severe back pain, and sometimes abdominal pain and vomiting. After 2–3 days, the body temperature falls and a rash appears, first on the face, hands and forearms, and later on the trunk.
Following a global WHO-led immunization campaign, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980. It no longer occurs naturally, but stocks of the virus are still kept in two high-containment laboratories.
Tiānhuā shì yóu tiānhuā bìngdú yǐnqǐ de jíxìng chuánrǎnbìng, jīngyóu shòu gǎnrǎn de qìróngjiāo hé yǐjīng xiǎnxiàn zhèngzhuàng de shòugǎnrǎnzhě de fēimò zài rénjì chuánbō.
Shòu gǎnrǎn hòu 12-14 tiān chūxiàn fāshāo, bùshì, tóutòng, yūnjué, bèibù jùtòng děng zhèngzhuàng, yǒushí bànyǒu fùtòng hé ǒutù. 2-3 tiān hòu, tǐwēn xiàjiàng, shēnshang chūxiàn pízhěn, shǒuxiān zài miànjiá, shǒu, qiánbì shàng, ránhòu zài qūgàn shàng chūxiàn pízhěn.
WHO zhǔchí kāizhǎnle quánqiú miǎnyì jiēzhòng yùndòng, yú 1980 nián xuānbù xiāomièle tiānhuā. Zìránjiè zhōng yǐjīng méiyǒu tiānhuā, dàn réng yǒu liǎng gè gāo fánghù shíyànshì chúbèi tiānhuā bìngdú.
# Pinyin/Smoke

* yanwuh
* xiyan
# Pinyin/Smelling

Smelling is the act of perceiving the odor of something.
wern qihweih shih gaanjuer moouwuh qihweih d xirngweir.
# Pinyin/Smog

Search Pinyin smog
# Pinyin/My favorite fruit

See also
《My Favorite Fruit》
《Wǒ Zuì Xǐhuān de Shuǐguǒ》
My favorite fruit is durian. Its shape is round. The top is covered with thorns. It likes a curled up hedgehog. The skin is yellow.
Wǒ zuì xǐhuān de shuǐguǒ shì liúlián, tā de xíngzhuàng yuányuán de, shàngmiàn zhǎngmǎnle cì, yǒudiǎn xiàng quánsuōzhe de cìwèi, pí shì huángsè de.
Its smell seems stinky, but its yellow flesh is smooth and the taste is nice.
Bié kàn tā chòuhōnghōng de, dànshì nǐ zhǐyào chángyīcháng liúlián huángsè de guǒròu, jiù huì ràng rén gǎndào huáhuá-nènnèn de, huíwèi-wúqióng.
# Pinyin/My little cat

My Little Cat
Today, my mother bought me a cute kitten.
It has a fatty body, shiny blue eyes, beautiful and soft hair.
I love my kitten.
Wǒjiā de Xiǎohuāmāo
Jīntiān, māmā gěi wǒ mǎile 1-zhi kě'ài de xiǎohuāmāo.
Xiǎomāo de shēnzi yuándūdū de, liǎng zhī yǎnjīng xiàng lánbǎoshí, quánshēn de máo yòu piàoliang yòu róuruǎn.
Wǒ xǐhuān wǒjiā de xiǎohuāmāo.
# Pinyin/My most happy day

My most happy day
Today, I am extremely happy. My aunt gave me a lot of delicious food. Today is the day I eat the most. Then my aunt took me to the riverside to play. I have seen turtles, and goldfishes......
Today is my happiest day.
wǒ zuì gāoxìng d yītiān
jīntiān, wǒ géwài gāoxìng. Dàgū gěi wǒ zuòle hǎoduō hàochī de. Jīntiān shì wǒ chī dé zuì bǎo de yītiān le. Zhīhòu dàgū dài wǒ qù hébiān wán. Wǒ kàndàole wūguī, hái yǒu jīnyú……
Jīntiān shì wǒ zuì kāixīn de yītiān le.

## Internal searches

happy
# Pinyin/My mother is like the Sun

Search mother
Search sun
My mother is like the Sun
My mother is like the Sun, shines within my heart, warmly.
My mother is a picture, thinking over it, very beautiful.
My mother is my clothing, wearing it on the body, warmly.
My mother is a mirror, I smile, she follows.
My mother is a warm home, accompanies me, to pass each day happily.
mama shih woo d taihyarng
mama shih woo d taihyarng,
zhaoh zaih woo d xinzhong,
nuaannuaan d.
mama shih 1-fur huah,
xiaangyixiaang,
heen piaohliahng.
mama shih woo d yifur,
chuan zaih shenshahng,
nuaanhuhu d.
mama shih 1-miahn jihng'zi,
woo xiaoh,
ta yee gen'zhe xiaoh.
mama shih wennuaan d jia,
peir'zhe woo,
duhguoh xihngfur d meeiyitian.