5.101 The truth-functions of every number of elementary propositions can be written out in a schema in the following way:

(T T T T)(p, q)	Tautology (if p then p, and if q then q) [p p . q q]
(F T T T)(p, q)	in words: Not both p and q. [~(p . q)]
(T F T T)(p, q)	'' '' If q then p. [q p]
(T T F T)(p, q)	'' '' If p then q. [p q]
(T T T F)(p, q)	'' '' p or q. [p v q]
(F F T T )(p, q)	'' '' Not q. [~q]
(F T F T)(p, q)	'' '' Not p. [~p]
(F T T F)(p, q)	'' '' p or q, but not both. [p . ~q :v: q . ~p]
(T F F T)(p, q)	'' '' If p, then q; and if q, then p. [p q]
(T F T F)(p, q)	'' '' p
(T T F F)(p, q)	'' '' q
(F F F T)(p, q)	'' '' Neither p nor q. [p . ~q or p | q]
(F F T F)(p, q)	'' '' p and not q. [p . ~q]
(F T F F)(p, q)	'' '' q and not p. [q . ~p]
(T F F F)(p, q)	'' '' p and q. [p . q]
(F F F F)(p, q)	Contradiction (p and not p; and q and not q.) [p . ~p . q . ~q]

Those truth-possibilities of its truth-arguments that verify a proposition, I will call its truth-grounds.

So, this is what those series would be. And here we have the in-between of tautology and contradiction that I doubted earlier (i.e. from the second to the penultimate line of the schema). Does this show my doubt to have been misplaced? Well, all we have here is a kind of chart. What is going to be done with it? How is it to be interpreted?