 whose kernel is $R$, and let $n$ be the number of states of ${\mathcal T}$. Let $uRv$, then we have $f(u)=f(v)$. Furthermore, if $u,v$ reach the same state in ${\mathcal T}$, since ${\mathcal T}$ is sequential, $f(uw)=f(vw)$ for any word $w$ which means that $uS_Rv$. Let $u_1Ru_2R\ldots R u_{n+1}$. By a pigeon-hole argument, there must be two indices $1\leq i<j\leq n+1$, such that $u_{i}$ and $u_{j}$ reach the same state in ${\mathcal T}$, hence $u_{i}S_Ru_{j}$. Thus we have shown that the index of $S_R$ with respect to $R$ is less than $ n$, and is thus finite.

\(0) at (0,0) ; (1) at (2,-.9) ; (2) at (2,.9) ;

\(0) edge node\[below\] (1); (0) edge\[loop above\] node\[above\] (0); (1) edge\[loop above\] node\[above\] (1); (0) edge node\[above,sloped\] (2); (2) edge\[loop above\] node\[right\] (2); (0) edge +(-.5,0); (0) edge +(0,-.5); (1) edge +(.5,0); (2) edge +(.5,0);

We give in Fig. \[fig:indexinf\] an example of a length-preserving equivalence relation such that its syntactic congruence does not have a finite index with respect to it. Two different words are never syntactically equivalent, however two words of same length without any $c$s are equivalent. Thus by Prop. \[prop:finite-index\], this relation is not in [[**KerSeq** ]{}]{}.

In the next two propositions, we show that 1) the syntactic congruence can be computed for a relation in ${{\bf RatEq}\xspace}^{{lp}}$ and 2) that the finiteness of its index can also be decided.

\[prop:comp-synt\] Let $R$ be an equivalence relation given as a pair-determ
whose kernel is $ R$, and let $ n$ be the number of states of $ { \mathcal T}$. Let $ uRv$, then we get $ f(u)=f(v)$. Furthermore, if $ uracil, v$ reach the same state in $ { \mathcal T}$, since $ { \mathcal T}$ is consecutive, $ f(uw)=f(vw)$ for any word $ w$ which means that $ uS_Rv$. Let $ u_1Ru_2R\ldots roentgen u_{n+1}$. By a pigeon - hole argument, there must be two index $ 1\leq i < j\leq n+1 $, such that $ u_{i}$ and $ u_{j}$ reach the same department of state in $ { \mathcal T}$, hence $ u_{i}S_Ru_{j}$. Thus we have indicate that the index of $ S_R$ with respect to $ R$ is less than $ n$, and is thus finite. 

 \(0) at (0,0); (1) at (2,-.9); (2) at (2,.9); 

 \(0) edge node\[below\ ] (1); (0) edge\[loop above\ ] node\[above\ ] (0); (1) edge\[loop above\ ] node\[above\ ] (1); (0) edge node\[above, sloped\ ] (2); (2) edge\[loop above\ ] node\[right\ ] (2); (0) boundary + (-.5,0); (0) edge + (0,-.5); (1) edge + (.5,0); (2) edge + (.5,0); 

 We hold in Fig.   \[fig: indexinf\ ] an example of a length - keep equivalence sexual intercourse such that its syntactic congruence does not have a finite index with respect to it. Two different quarrel are never syntactically equivalent, however two words of same length without any $ c$s are equivalent. Thus by Prop.   \[prop: finite - index\ ], this relation is not in [ [ * * KerSeq * * ] { } ] { }. 

 In the future two propositions, we show that 1) the syntactic congruence can be computed for a relation in $ { { \bf RatEq}\xspace}^{{lp}}$ and 2) that the finiteness of its index can also be decided. 

 \[prop: comp - synt\ ] Let $ R$ be an equality relation given as a couple - determ
 whlse kernel is $R$, and let $k$ be the number of statxs of ${\mzthcal T}$. Let $uRv$, then we have $f(u)=f(v)$. Fnrthwrmort, if $u,v$ reach the sxme state in ${\mathxal U}$, since ${\mathcal T}$ is sequcutial, $n(uw)=f(vc)$ hor any word $w$ ehich meanv that $uS_Rv$. Led $j_1Rb_2R\ldots R u_{n+1}$. By a pigeon-hole argumene, there mkst be two indyces $1\jeq j<j\leq n+1$, such that $u_{i}$ and $u_{j}$ reach fhe samt state in ${\mathcal T}$, hence $u_{i}S_Ru_{j}$. Thus we hage sjown that the inded of $S_R$ wity refpect to $R$ is less than $ n$, and is tgus finite.

\(0) at (0,0) ; (1) at (2,-.9) ; (2) at (2,.9) ;

\(0) edgd nodz\[below\] (1); (0) edte\[oooo above\] node\[ebove\] (0); (1) edge\[loop anpve\] noge\[above\] (1); (0) edge node\[abpve,vloped\] (2); (2) edge\[loop above\] iode\[right\] (2); (0) edge +(-.5,0); (0) eqge +(0,-.5); (1) edga +(.5,0); (2) edge +(.5,0);

We give in Fug. \[fig:hndefinf\] qn dxajpke of a penjth-preservihg equivalebce relation such tnae its syntactid congwuqnce does not have a finite index with gespsct to it. Two different words are never syntwctically equivalent, however two words of same length withmut aiy $c$s ave edyigalent. Thus by Prop. \[prop:finite-index\], this relatykn ix not in [[**KerSez** ]{}]{}.

In the nect tej propositionr, we skkw that 1) the syntactlc congtuence can be cjmpuyed for a relation in ${{\bf RarEq}\xspace}^{{lp}}$ cnd 2) that the finitenzss of its iudex csn alxo be decided.

\[prop:comp-syut\] Let $R$ be an eqkivalence felation given ar a pdir-determ
whose kernel is $R$, and let $n$ number states of T}$. Let $uRv$, if reach the same in ${\mathcal T}$, ${\mathcal T}$ is sequential, $f(uw)=f(vw)$ for word $w$ which means that $uS_Rv$. Let $u_1Ru_2R\ldots R u_{n+1}$. By a pigeon-hole there must be two indices $1\leq i<j\leq n+1$, such that $u_{i}$ and $u_{j}$ the state ${\mathcal hence $u_{i}S_Ru_{j}$. Thus we have shown that the index of $S_R$ with respect to $R$ is than $ n$, and is thus finite. \(0) (0,0) ; (1) at ; (2) at (2,.9) ; edge (1); (0) above\] (0); edge\[loop above\] node\[above\] (0) edge node\[above,sloped\] (2); (2) edge\[loop above\] node\[right\] (2); (0) edge +(-.5,0); (0) edge +(0,-.5); (1) edge (2) edge give in \[fig:indexinf\] example a length-preserving equivalence that its syntactic congruence does not index with respect to it. Two different words never syntactically however two words of same length any $c$s are equivalent. Thus by Prop. \[prop:finite-index\], relation is not in [[**KerSeq** ]{}]{}. In the next two propositions, we show that 1) congruence can be computed a relation in RatEq}\xspace}^{{lp}}$ 2) the of its can also be decided. \[prop:comp-synt\] Let $R$ be an equivalence relation as a pair-determ
 whose kernel is $R$, and let $n$ be thE number of sTates Of ${\mAthCaL T}$. LeT $uRv$, Then we have $f(u)=f(v)$. fUrthErmore, if $u,v$ reach the same State In ${\MAthcAL T}$, Since ${\Mathcal t}$ Is SEQueNtIaL, $f(uW)=f(VW)$ fOr any WorD $w$ which Means that $us_Rv$. leT $u_1Ru_2R\ldots R u_{N+1}$. by A pigeon-holE arGument, there mUst Be two iNdIceS $1\Leq i<j\Leq N+1$, such That $u_{i}$ ANd $u_{j}$ reAch the samE sTAte in ${\mAThcal T}$, hENCe $U_{i}S_RU_{j}$. Thus we have shown THaT The index of $S_R$ wiTh respEcT To $r$ IS leSs tHan $ n$, and is tHuS finiTE.

\(0) at (0,0) ; (1) at (2,-.9) ; (2) at (2,.9) ;

\(0) EDgE NODe\[bELow\] (1); (0) edge\[loop abOve\] node\[abovE\] (0); (1) EdgE\[loop aBoVe\] nODe\[abovE\] (1); (0) edge NoDE\[abOve,sloped\] (2); (2) edGe\[loOp above\] noDe\[righT\] (2); (0) Edge +(-.5,0); (0) edgE +(0,-.5); (1) Edge +(.5,0); (2) edgE +(.5,0);

We givE in fig. \[Fig:iNDeXiNf\] aN eXAmpLE oF a lENgtH-preservInG eQuivaLencE RELAtioN suCh thAt its Syntactic congRueNce dOEs nOt havE a finIte iNdEx witH respeCt to iT. TWo different wordS are Never syntActIcAllY eQuivaLEnt, howEveR twO words oF same leNGth WiTHOUt Any $c$s are equivalent. thUS By prop. \[prop:Finite-INdEx\], THis relatIoN is Not iN [[**kErSeq** ]{}]{}.

in thE NeXt two proPositiONs, We Show thaT 1) tHe syntAcTic ConGruenCE can Be compUted for a RelatIOn in ${{\bf RatEq}\xspACe}^{{lp}}$ and 2) that thE FiNITeNEss oF itS index can alSo be DEcidEd.

\[prOP:cOmp-SYnt\] LeT $R$ be aN eQUiVAlence relation given As A pair-dEterm
 whose kernel is $R$, andlet $n$ be  thenum ber  o f st ates  of ${\mathcal T}$.  Let $uRv$, then we ha ve $f (u ) =f(v ) $.  Furt hermore ,  i f $u, v$  r eac ht he  same  st ate in${\mathcal  T} $,  since ${\ma t hc al T}$ isseq uential, $f( uw) =f(vw) $for any w ord  $w$whichm eans t hat $uS_R v$ .  Let $ u _1Ru_2R \ l do ts R  u_{n+1}$. By a p i ge o n-hole argumen t, the re mu s t  be  tw o indices$1 \leqi <j\leqn +1 $ , suc h  that $u_{i}$  and $u_{j} $  re ach th esam e  state  in $ {\ m ath cal T}$, he nce$u_{i}S_R u_{j}$ .  Thus w e  have s hown t hat  th e in d ex  o f $ S_ R $ w i th  re s pec t to $R$  i slessthan $ n $, a ndis t hus f inite.

\(0)at(0,0 )  ;(1) a t (2, -.9)  ;  (2)at (2, .9) ; 
\(0) edge node\ [bel ow\] (1);  (0 )edg e\ [loop above\ ] n ode \[above \] (0); (1)  e d g e \[ loop above\] node\ [a b o ve \] (1);(0) ed g eno d e\[above ,s lop ed\] ( 2); ( 2) e d ge \[loop a bove\] no de \[right \]  (2);(0 ) e dge  +(-. 5 ,0);  (0) e dge +(0, -.5); (1) edge +(.5, 0 ); (2) edge + ( .5 , 0 ); 
Wegiv e in Fig. \ [fig : inde xinf \ ]ane xampl e ofal en g th-preserving equiv al ence r elati on such thatits syntac t i c  congrue nced oe s  not have a fi niteindex with respectto it . Two di fferent w o r ds are n eve r s ynt act i c al ly equivalent , howe ve r two w ord s of sa melen gth  wi th out any $ c$s areeq ui va le nt.  Thus by Prop.  \ [pr op :fi nite- i ndex\] , thi s re la ti o n i s not i n  [ [ * *Ker Se q* * ]{ }]{ }. 

Inthen ext  two pr oposition s,w e sh ow  t hat 1)the syntactic  c ongruenceca n b e comp u t ed for a  relation in ${{\bf Rat E q}\xspa ce} ^{{lp }}$and 2) th atthe fi nit e ness o f itsindex  c ana l so be d ec ide d. 

\[prop:c o m p-s ynt\]  L et $ R$ be a n equivalence rela t ion  given as a p air -det e r m
 whose_kernel is_$R$, and let $n$_be the_number_of states_of_${\mathcal T}$. Let_$uRv$, then we_have $f(u)=f(v)$. Furthermore, if_$u,v$ reach the_same_state in ${\mathcal T}$, since ${\mathcal T}$ is sequential, $f(uw)=f(vw)$ for any word $w$_which_means that_$uS_Rv$._Let_$u_1Ru_2R\ldots R u_{n+1}$. By a_pigeon-hole argument, there must be_two indices_$1\leq i<j\leq n+1$, such that $u_{i}$ and $u_{j}$_reach_the same state_in ${\mathcal T}$, hence $u_{i}S_Ru_{j}$. Thus we have shown_that the index of $S_R$ with_respect to $R$_is_less_than $ n$, and_is thus finite.

\(0) at (0,0) ;_(1) at (2,-.9) ; (2) at_(2,.9) ;

\(0) edge node\[below\] (1); (0) edge\[loop_above\] node\[above\] (0); (1) edge\[loop above\]_node\[above\] (1); (0) edge node\[above,sloped\]_(2); (2)_edge\[loop above\] node\[right\] (2); (0)_edge +(-.5,0); (0)_edge +(0,-.5);_(1) edge +(.5,0);_(2) edge +(.5,0);

We give in Fig. \[fig:indexinf\]_an example of_a length-preserving equivalence relation such that_its_syntactic congruence does_not_have_a finite_index with respect_to_it. Two_different_words are never syntactically equivalent, however_two_words of same length without any $c$s_are equivalent. Thus by_Prop. \[prop:finite-index\],_this relation is not_in [[**KerSeq** ]{}]{}.

In the next_two propositions, we show that 1)_the syntactic_congruence can_be computed for a relation in ${{\bf RatEq}\xspace}^{{lp}}$ and 2) that_the finiteness of its index can_also be decided.

\[prop:comp-synt\] Let_$R$ be_an_equivalence relation given_as_a pair-determ