Okay, I wiki'd it, and according to them seems you're right: it says
they are "typically connected by covalent chemical bonds." So either
we revert to the etymological use of "polymer," or move onward to
"myriomer!" (assuming the cross-bred "multimer" is out of the
question!)
JPK
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM, David Schuller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 06/18/12 11:17, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>> But anyway, what is
>> wrong with calling her structures "polymers?" Is there a subtle
>> covalent insinuation to "polymer?"
>>
> subtle? No, it's not subtle.
>
>
> --
> =======================================================================
> All Things Serve the Beam
> =======================================================================
> David J. Schuller
> modern man in a post-modern world
> MacCHESS, Cornell University
> [log in to unmask]
--
*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller
Northwestern University
Medical Scientist Training Program
email: [log in to unmask]
*******************************************
|