basic

why?????????????????
ans is o dear which was also stated by subash..........

i know its debatable and not easily swallowable........

lets c if i get a chance i'll ask ma teacher n tell u wat he says...
u try n do da same

yaar.......i still stand by my first post..............Zero isomers

this is a bridge-head situation..... so i feel free rotation will b retarded....

ur point is correct that in biphenyl situation planarity is due to double bond thing.....

but ther 2 phenyls r connectged by a c-c bond......

here to v jus hav 1 carbon sufficing both the rings.......... so i m not sure!!!

i know what u r saying is similar to biphenyl situation...........but see there too there was planarity concept used due to partial double bond character due to resonance[1]

hmmmmmmmmmm[12][12].............I dont think it will be possible......maybe i am wrong...........but there is no double bond between those 2 rings....so both rings will be free to rotate....so i dont think then we can say 2 isomers..........we have to say then infinite isomers.....just like confirmation.....[2]

@Eureka :

ther r 2 geo isomers as the ther are two ring structure involved in the structuer

ther will b 2 geo isomers possible :
1. wen both the rings are coplanar!!!

2. wen both rings are perpendicular!!( as shown in the diag by subhash)

there's only one structure . so no isomers for this .plane of symmetry.

ohhhhh!!!!

yeah..... o stereoiso.... 2 geometrical isomers

is there some trick involved??????????[12]

ans i guess wud b 2

no worries when eureka is here........[3]

btw nic pic bro..........[1]

how chiral??????????????????

I dont think I am sleeepy yet...........[12]

2 identical methyl groups attatched.............

the carbon marked wont it be chiral i dont see any symmetry either

ans is a surprise (atleast to me) zero

i dunno i dint get it thats why posting