>>7798289
>truth tables

Your school is shit.

>statement variables
>obfuscation terminology

Your school is really shitty.

>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products

Your school is a joke.

>>7798307
>complaining about the use of truth tables in what is clearly the beginning of an introductory class

You are a joke

>>7798307
>I have never taken a course in symbolic logic

>>7798314

You should never see truth tables beyond day 1

>>7798318
You are aware of the date, right?

>>7798289
Bump

>>7798307
>>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products
You are:
1) a retard.
2) an undergrad who doesn't know dick about categorical logic.

Everything else I agree with. Truth tables are okay at an intro level but they're deeply biased towards classical logic. "Statement variables" should be called propositions or 0-ary predicates.

>>7798318
Truth tables are a form of proof that is useful in highlighting the relationship between statements in a logic and their models. A clever student can convert truth tables into Eulerian diagrams and trivialize the majority of intro logic.

>>7798318
Except you should.

>>7798619
Me again, I got so caught up in criticizing that retard that I forgot about OP's question.

>>7798289
OP, what your professor is trying to get at is that implication and contradiction form a truth functionally complete set of connectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_completeness#Introduction

>>7798629
I don't understand

>>7798289
1. x→y = ¬x∨y
2. ¬x∧¬y = ¬(x∨y)
=>
x∧y = ¬(¬x∨¬y)
= ¬(x→¬y)

x y x∧y ¬y (x→¬y) ¬(x→¬y)
0 0 | 0 1 1 0
0 1 | 0 0 1 0
1 0 | 0 1 1 0
1 1 | 1 0 0 1