1. false∧true is ...
  2. true⊕false is ...
  3. false⇒false is ...
  4. Consider the following truth table for mystery operator X: What is the value of "true X false"? How about "true X true"?
  5. Important: an operator is called a unary operator if it takes only one argument (like $\neg$) and a binary operator if it takes two (like ∧, ⊕, etc).
    Problem:
    1. How many different unary operators are there? (Regardless of whether we've given them names!) Prove it! (i.e. convince me).
    2. How many different binary operators are there? (Regardless of whether we've given them names!) Prove it! (i.e. convince me).

    A note on proof
    "Proof" is going to be an important topic of this course; one that runs as a thread through everything we do. Perhaps the most basic form of proof is what we might call "Proof by calculation". You've been doing this in algebra for years already. If someone asks you to prove that 15% of 88.30 is greater than 12.50, you would simply show them the calculation .15*88.30 = 13.2450 > 12.50. The point is that this kind of caclulation is so basic, that we all consider it to be self-explanatory. I could do it myself if I didn't want to take your word for it. It will be the same for propositional logic. Each of these calculations like "false⇔false evaluates to true" is a proof of a result. A boring proof, but there you go. It's "boring" because it is a one step proof with the justification always being "because that's what the table in the definition says". It's important to recognize what's going on here, though, because the idea that we always bottom out with "because that's what the definition says" is important. When we get an proof down to that level, there is no arguing and no room for disagreement ... unless you can't agree on what the definition actually is. In mathematics, this shouldn't happen often. In life, however, this happens very often.