## The difference between a sequential space and a space with countable tightness

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

Hi, I have recently encountered these two definitions of a sequential space and a space of countable tightness. And I seem to have difficulty understanding what is the difference between these two definitions. For example, I know that the space of ultrafilters over ,say, R or N is not weakly Frechet Urysohn so it should not be sequential. But how can one show it directly from the definition? Also, Does these spaces have countble tightness? Thanks!

-

## 4 Answers

All three notions, "countably tight," "sequential," and "Frechet-Urysohn," say that each point $p$ in the closure of a set $A$ can be "approached in some countable way" by points from $A$. The difference is in the "countable ways." The strongest of the three, Frechet-Urysohn, requires $p$ to be the limit of a sequence of points in $A$. "Sequential" allows iteration of this: Take the set of limits of sequences of points in $A$; then take limits of sequences of such points; then take limits ... ; eventually you get $p$. (More formally, let `$A_0=A$`, let `$A_{\alpha+1}$` be the set of limits of sequences from `$A_\alpha$`, and for limit ordinals let `$A_\lambda$` be the union of all `$A_\alpha$`'s for $\alpha<\lambda$. Then $p$ should be in `$A_\alpha$` for some $\alpha$. The $\alpha$ here can always be taken to be countable, but that's the best bound you can get.) Finally, "countably tight" only requires $p$ to be in the closure of some countable subset of $A$; that can happen even if there are no convergent sequences of points from $A$ (except of course the eventually constant sequences).

-

### You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.

Some examples to expand Andreas' answer might be of interest: (it's too much to fit in a comment so I'm adding it as an answer, though I think Andreas' response is great)

• any metric space will be Frechet-Urysohn (choose `$x_n$` in `$A$` within `$1/n$` of `$p$`); (more generally, any first-countable space is F-U: just choose $x_n$ in the intersection of `$A$` and `$U_n$` where `$\{U_n\}_n$` is a countable base at the limit point);

• a sequential but not Frechet-Urysohn space is given by taking `$((\omega+1)\times\omega)\cup\{*\}$` where each copy of $\omega+1$ has the usual topology and a base for `$*$` consists of sets `$A_{m,n}=\{(m,n)|m>M,n>N_m\}$` for `$M,N_m\in\omega$` (ie cofinitely many elements of cofinitely many fibers) - then `$*$` is in the closure of `$\omega\times\omega$` but is not the limit of any sequence of points in `$\omega\times\omega$`; however, it is the limit of the sequence `$x_n=(\omega,n)$` and each `$x_n$` is the limit of a sequence of points from `$\omega\times\omega$`;

• a countably-tight but not sequential space could be given by taking `$(\omega\times\omega)\cup\{*\}$` where all points `$(m,n)$` are open and a base for `$*$` consist of sets `$A_{M,N}=\{(m,n)|m>M, n>N_m\}$` for `$M,N_m\in\omega$` - this space is trivially countably tight (it's countable) but is not sequential: `$*$` is not the limit of any sequence in `$\omega\times\omega$` (since we can always exclude any putative sequence converging to `$*$`);

• finally a non-countably-tight space is given by `$\omega_1+1$` with the usual topology: `$\omega_1$` (as a point) is in the closure of `$\omega_1$` (as a set) but any countable subset of `$\omega_1$` has bounded (countable) closure.

-

Just a partial answer.

For $\beta \mathbb{N}$ (the set of all ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$ with the Stone topology) it is not hard to see that a sequence converges iff it is eventually constant. Hence any subset of $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is sequentially open -- and of course, $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is not discrete, so it cannot be sequential. Similarly, for the ultrafilters on $\mathbb{R}$.

If I recall correctly, this 'trivial sequential convergence' holds in all extremally disconnected spaces -- this should be an exercise in the book 'Rings of continuous functions' by Gillman and Jerison (there is also a PDF/TeX-file with all exercise solutions freely available on the web somewhere).

Also, I could be wrong, but I think $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is not countably tight since its remainder is not (since there exist weak P-points). Maybe somebody else can confirm or reject.

-

Does anyone here know how to show that sequential implies pytkeev? or, where can one find a proof of it?

-

This should be a separate question rather than an answer.  Wikipedia claims to give a proof at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytkeev_space but it involves terminology that I'm not familiar with ($\pi$-net) and too busy to look up just now, so I don't guarantee that the proof is correct. – Andreas Blass Aug 26 at 22:20
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 23, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 20, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9513883590698242, "perplexity_flag": "head"}