This is to simplify matters...
As I said in my other post, I am particularly grateful for the patience of VideCorSpoon and Goapy. I enjoy philosophy but am having trouble getting my head around some of these logical matters.
So what I need to do in this question is determine what binary truth-functional sentential connective stands in place of "#," in light of this information:
P#P is a tautology; and the sentence Q#P is not a tautological consequence of the sentences [P#Q] and P.
It was my understanding that I was working with four possible connectives ("and", "or", "if/then" and "if and only if"). However (and I could be mistaken) I determined that neither of the "and" or "or" can be reconciled with P#P, while neither the "if/then" or "if and only if" can be reconciled with the formula I believed myself to be working with:
([P->Q] ^ P]) -> [Q-P]
It could be also however that I have interpretted the information wrong. Either way, I could use, and am grateful for, any confirmation or denial of my claims regarding the four common connectives...
2. I need to figure out what this binary truth-functional sentential connective (#) actually is in light of
P#P being a tautology, and Q#P not being a tautological consequence of the sentences P#Q and P.
That's a typo.
That was meant to indicate "if/then" which I had tested out to see if it would fit, since P->P is tautological...
See the key is to find what the connective is.
Even if I replace that "->" with the "if and only if" it still doesn't seem to work...
So is this what we are dealing with:
([P←Q] and P]) ← ([Q ← P])
I am putting it in a table at this moment...