Changes

|}

|}

But doing the same thing for the compound relative term <math>(\mathit{s}^\mathit{l})^\mathrm{w}\!</math> is less immediate, the hang-up being that we have yet to define the case of logical involution that raises a 2-adic relative term to the power of a 2-adic relative term.

On the other hand, translating the compound relative term <math>(\mathit{s}^\mathit{l})^\mathrm{w}\!</math> into a set-theoretic equivalent is less immediate, the hang-up being that we have yet to define the case of logical involution that raises a 2-adic relative term to the power of a 2-adic relative term.  As a result, it looks easier to proceed through the matrix representation, drawing once again on the inspection of a concrete example.

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

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

<math>\begin{array}{*{15}{c}}

<math>\begin{array}{*{15}{c}}

X & = & \{ & a, & b, & c, & d, & e, & f, & g, & h, & i\ & \}

X & = & \{ & a, & b, & c, & d, & e, & f, & g, & h, & i\ & \}

\\[6pt]

\\[6pt]

L & = & \{ & b\!:\!a, & b\!:\!c, & c\!:\!b, & c\!:\!d, & e\!:\!d, & e\!:\!e, & e\!:\!f, & g\!:\!f, & g\!:\!h, & h\!:\!g, & h\!:\!i & \}

L & = & \{ & b\!:\!a, & b\!:\!c, & c\!:\!b, & c\!:\!d, & e\!:\!d, & e\!:\!e, & e\!:\!f, & g\!:\!f, & g\!:\!h, & h\!:\!g, & h\!:\!i & \}

<pre>

<pre>

a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i     

a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i     

o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  X

o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  X

  \  \ /  / \  |  / \  \ /  /     

  \  \ /  / \  |  / \  \ /  /