Proof

Part (a): Eventually Constant Sequences

Definition: A sequence of natural numbers s : N → N is called eventually
constant if there exists N ∈ N such that for all n, m ≥ N , s(n) = s(m).
Theorem: A sequence of rational numbers is Cauchy if and only if it is
eventually constant.
Proof:
1. If a sequence is eventually constant, then it is Cauchy:
Suppose {qn } is a sequence of rational numbers that is eventually constant.
This means there exists an N ∈ N and a rational number q such that for all
n ≥ N , qn = q.
For any  > 0, choose M = N . Then for all n, m ≥ M ,

|qn − qm | = |q − q| = 0 < .

Therefore, {qn } is a Cauchy sequence.

2. If a sequence is Cauchy, then it is eventually constant:
Suppose {qn } is a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers. By the definition
of a Cauchy sequence, for every  > 0, there exists an N ∈ N such that for all
n, m ≥ N ,
|qn − qm | < .
1
Since {qn } is a sequence of rational numbers, choose  = 2. There exists
N ∈ N such that for all n, m ≥ N ,
1
|qn − qm | < .
2
The distance between any two rational numbers qn and qm for n, m ≥ N is
less than 21 , meaning qn and qm must be the same rational number (since the
rational numbers are discrete and 12 is less than the distance between any two
distinct rational numbers). Therefore, for all n, m ≥ N ,

qn = qm .

Thus, {qn } is eventually constant.

Proof
Part (b): Countability of Eventually Constant Sequences
of Naturals
Theorem: There are countably many eventually constant sequences of natural
numbers.
Proof:

1
 1. Definition of Eventually Constant Sequences: A sequence of natural num-
bers s : N → N is eventually constant if there exists an N ∈ N and a natural
number c ∈ N such that for all n ≥ N , s(n) = c.
2. Characterization of Eventually Constant Sequences: We can describe an
eventually constant sequence s by two pieces of information:
ˆ The position N from which the sequence becomes constant.

ˆ The constant value c that the sequence takes from position N onwards.

ˆ The finite initial segment of the sequence before it becomes constant, which
is a finite tuple (s(0), s(1), . . . , s(N − 1)).
3. Encoding the Eventually Constant Sequences:
ˆ N can take any value in N.

ˆ c can take any value in N.

ˆ The initial segment (s(0), s(1), . . . , s(N −1)) is a finite sequence of natural
numbers, and there are countably many such finite sequences since each
element of the sequence is a natural number.
4. Countable Union:

ˆ For each fixed N and c, the set of all finite sequences of length N is
countable because it is a product of finitely many copies of N, each of
which is countable.
ˆ Since there are countably many choices for N and countably many choices
for c, the set of all such finite sequences for each fixed N and c is countable.

5. Conclusion: The set of eventually constant sequences of natural numbers

can be expressed as a countable union of countable sets:
[
{(s(0), s(1), . . . , s(N − 1), c, c, c, . . .)},
N ∈N,c∈N

where each set in the union is countable. Since a countable union of countable
sets is countable, the set of all eventually constant sequences of natural numbers
is countable.

Therefore, there are countably many eventually constant sequences of naturals.

Part (c): Conclusion

From part (a), we have shown that a sequence of rational numbers is Cauchy
if and only if it is eventually constant. Since natural numbers are a subset of
rational numbers, this result applies to sequences of natural numbers as well.

2
 From part (b), we have shown that there are countably many eventually
constant sequences of natural numbers.
Since every Cauchy sequence of natural numbers is eventually constant (from
part (a)), and there are countably many eventually constant sequences of natural
numbers (from part (b)), it follows that:

There are countably many Cauchy sequences of natural numbers.

Q4:

Proof
Part (a): Countability of Equivalence Classes
Theorem: If A is countable and ∼ is an equivalence relation on A, then every
equivalence class is countable.
Proof:
1. Definition of Countability: A set A is countable if there exists a bijection
between A and the natural numbers N. This means A can be listed as A =
{a1 , a2 , a3 , . . .}.
2. Equivalence Relation: An equivalence relation ∼ on a set A partitions A
into disjoint equivalence classes. For a ∈ A, the equivalence class of a is defined
as [a] = {x ∈ A | x ∼ a}.
3. Countability of Equivalence Classes: We need to show that each equiva-
lence class [a] is countable.
Since A is countable, we can enumerate its elements as A = {a1 , a2 , a3 , . . .}.
Consider any equivalence class [a] for a ∈ A.
Define a set B = {n ∈ N | an ∼ a}. This set B contains the indices of
elements in A that are equivalent to a.
4. Injective Mapping: Construct a mapping f : B → [a] by f (n) = an for
each n ∈ B.
Since an ∼ a for all n ∈ B, the mapping f is well-defined. Furthermore, this
mapping is injective because if f (n1 ) = f (n2 ), then an1 = an2 , which implies
n1 = n2 .
5. Surjective Mapping: The mapping f is also surjective because for any
x ∈ [a], there exists an n ∈ B such that f (n) = x. Specifically, if x ∈ [a], then
x = ak for some k ∈ N with ak ∼ a, which means k ∈ B and f (k) = x.
6. Bijection and Countability: Since f is a bijection between B and [a], and
B is a subset of N, B is countable. Therefore, [a] is countable as well.

Hence, every equivalence class is countable.

3
Counterexample to the Converse Statement
Part (b): Converse of the Theorem
Question: Is the converse of the statement ”If A is countable, then every
equivalence class is countable” true? That is, if every equivalence class of an
equivalence relation ∼ on a set A is countable, does it imply that A is countable?
Answer: No, the converse is not true. We provide a counterexample to
illustrate this.

Counterexample
Consider the set A = R (the set of all real numbers) and define an equivalence
relation ∼ on R as follows:

x ∼ y if and only if x − y ∈ Q,

where Q is the set of all rational numbers.

1. Equivalence Classes:
ˆ For any x ∈ R, the equivalence class [x] under ∼ is given by:

[x] = {y ∈ R | x − y ∈ Q}.

ˆ This equivalence class [x] consists of all real numbers that differ from x
by a rational number. Essentially, each equivalence class is of the form
x + Q.
2. Countability of Equivalence Classes:
ˆ Since Q is countable and the set of all real numbers of the form x + q
(for q ∈ Q) is a countable set, it follows that each equivalence class [x] is
countable.
3. Uncountability of A:
ˆ The set A = R is uncountable.
Despite every equivalence class [x] being countable, the set A = R itself is
uncountable. Therefore, this counterexample demonstrates that the converse is
not true.

Proof
Part (c): Showing |A/ ∼ | ≤ |A|
Theorem: If ∼ is an equivalence relation on a set A, then the cardinality of
the set of equivalence classes, denoted |A/ ∼ |, is less than or equal to the
cardinality of A, i.e., |A/ ∼ | ≤ |A|.

4
 Proof:
1. Equivalence Classes: The equivalence relation ∼ on A partitions A into
disjoint equivalence classes. The set of all equivalence classes is denoted by
A/ ∼.
2. Surjective Mapping: Define a mapping f : A → A/ ∼ by f (a) = [a],
where [a] is the equivalence class containing the element a.
3. Well-defined and Surjectivity: The mapping f is well-defined because
each element a ∈ A belongs to a unique equivalence class [a].
The mapping f is surjective because every equivalence class in A/ ∼ has
at least one representative in A. For every equivalence class [a] ∈ A/ ∼, there
exists some a ∈ A such that f (a) = [a].
4. Cardinality: Although f is not necessarily injective (since different ele-
ments in A can map to the same equivalence class), surjectivity alone implies
that A/ ∼ is no larger than A in terms of cardinality.
To see this formally, consider the sizes of the sets. Since f is a surjective
map from A to A/ ∼, every element of A/ ∼ is hit by some element of A.
5. Conclusion: By the definition of cardinality and the properties of sur-
jective functions, the cardinality of the set of equivalence classes A/ ∼ cannot
exceed the cardinality of the set A.
Therefore, we conclude:
|A/ ∼ | ≤ |A|