After further studying this thread, I believe I've been misunderstood.
Let's read again what I wrote in an earlier post:
"Looking at the 3 pictures on my first post above:
'And' works as expected as input 1 is on and input 2 is off.
'Nor' and 'Xnor' don't work as expected as 1 is on, 2 is off and according to truth tables in this state the output should be off.
I went on the test the Boolean module by having nothing plugged into the inputs and only the output plugged into the sequencer. Obviously this means both inputs are off. All the 6 different boolean modes worked as expected in this case.
This backs up my original theory that the LFO pulse wave signal must be inverting the output, not the module itself as suggested in one of the replies above."
Ok, I can see how this was confusing although on the right track when I wrote of how the LFO pulse wave must be inverting the output.
Let's look at this line which was part of a reply to one of my replies:
"The Mini LFO is not inverting ANY input signal, because it does not have a signal input jack."
The mini LFO clearly doesn't have an input jack. I didn't say anything about the LFO inverting an input signal.
And:
"The Mini LFO is outputting a square wave signal which OSCILLATES between the values of 0V and +5V. The clue is in the name "Low Frequency OSCILLATOR"."
That's more or less what I meant, furthermore I know what an LFO is, I know it's an OSCILLATOR and it really doesn't need to be shouted in capitals!
When I wrote "Exactly, that's more or less what I said about the LFO inverting the signal..." I didn't mean the LFO was inverting any input, I meant the LFO was inverting the signal it was sending to the Boolean operator. That was my original reasoning as to why the boolean operator wasn't behaving as expected. Now I know it's the square wave signal causing there to be an 'on/off' output as it goes up and down. from 0 to 5 volts and back again.
I was right! OK, I didn't word it correctly initially I admit, this has led to the misunderstanding I guess however, I re-explained it in my other reply which began: "Looking at the 3 pictures on my first post above:"
I now know it's the square wave changing the output of the boolean operators originally in question. What you have been trying to tell me here is what I already knew was happening at the time of writing the post quoted above.
Apologies if this comes across as a little harsh, I don't mean to be, however, above all, I totally understand what is going on now. Thanks again for your help even though this has been a most frustrating topic.