Changes

|}

|}

It is very instructive to examine the matrix representation of <math>\mathit{l}^\mathrm{w}\!</math> at this point, not the least because it dispels the mystery of the name ''involution''.

It is very instructive to examine the matrix representation of <math>\mathit{l}^\mathrm{w}\!</math> at this point, not the least because it effectively dispels the mystery of the name ''involution''. First, let us make the following observation.  To say that <math>\mathrm{J}\!</math> is a lover of every woman is to say that <math>\mathrm{J}\!</math> loves <math>\mathrm{K}\!</math> if <math>\mathrm{K}\!</math> is a woman.  This can be rendered in symbols as follows:

 

 

To say that <math>\mathrm{J}\!</math> is a lover of every woman is to say that <math>\mathrm{J}\!</math> loves <math>\mathrm{K}\!</math> if <math>\mathrm{K}\!</math> is a woman.  This can be rendered in symbols as follows:

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

|}

|}

Interpreting the formula <math>\mathit{l}^\mathrm{w}\!</math> as <math>\mathrm{J} ~\text{loves}~ \mathrm{K} ~\Leftarrow~ \mathrm{K} ~\text{is a woman}</math> highlights the form of the converse implication inherent in it, and this in turn reveals the analogy between implication and involution that accounts for the aptness of the latter name.

Interpreting the formula <math>\mathit{l}^\mathrm{w}\!</math> as <math>\mathrm{J} ~\text{loves}~ \mathrm{K} ~\Leftarrow~ \mathrm{K} ~\text{is a woman}</math> highlights the form of the converse implication that lies inherent in it, and this in turn reveals the analogy between implication and involution that accounts for the aptness of the latter name.

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"

\end{bmatrix}

\end{bmatrix}

</math>

</math>

|}

|}