Truth conditions, roughly, are the way things should be in order for a sentence to be true.
For instance, the condition for the sentence "Paul is a cat" is that the individual denoted by "Paul" is a memeber of the cat set.
Following Tarski's theory of truth, it should be possibile to say that:
1)"p V (p ∧ q)" is true iff it obtains that p or it obtains that p and it obtains that q.
2)"p ∧ (q V not-q)" is true iff it obtains that p and it obtains that q or q does not obtain.
Following Tarski, it seems to me that the two stataments have different truth conditions, altough their truth table is identical and they are both equivalent to just the statament "p".
Where is my error in the construction of the truth conditions of the stataments in 1 e 2 following Tarski's recursive definition?