Take p.q & q. When you write p.q in the a–b notation, it is impossible to see from the symbol alone that q follows from it; for if you were to
interpret
substitute
the true-pole for as the false, the same symbol would stand for p ⌵ q, from wh. q doesn't follow. But the moment you say wh. symbols are tautologies, it at once becomes possible to see from th[is|e] fact, ˇthat they are & the ˇoriginal symbol that q does follow.