Hi, I am reading an article and have encountered a remark in a proof which is not clear to me. Maybe someone can help?

The proposition is: Let X be a topological space without isolated points having countable $ \pi $-weight and such that every nowhere dense subset in it is closed. Then it is a Pytkeev space.

Here is the begining of the proof: Let $ x \in Cl(A) \setminus A$. Then $ x \in Cl(Int(Cl(A))) $, because every nowhere dense set is closed (and hence discrete)...

The thing which is not clear to me: Why can one conclude that every nowhere dense closed set is discrete? Suppose I take the set $ \mathbb N$ with the cofinite topology. Then the finite sets are closed and nowhere dense. But as far as I undesrtand they are not discrete since every open set in the topology that contains a finit set also has to contain other points since it is infinite. Can somone see what am I missing?

The definition of a Ptkeev space: Let X be a topological space. A point x is called a Pytkeev point if whenever $ x \in \overline {A\setminus{x}}$, there exists a countable $ \pi $-net of infinite subsets of A. If every point of a space is a Pytkeev point then the space is called a Pytkeev space.


  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I used a wrong definition for a discrete set.. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – tali11
    Aug 22, 2010 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonas: Please make your comments into an answer. $\endgroup$ Aug 22, 2010 at 16:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @François: Done. (I turned 3 comments from 11 hours ago into an answer, then deleted them.) $\endgroup$ Aug 22, 2010 at 17:06

1 Answer 1


Because a nowhere dense set minus a point is nowhere dense, the hypothesis implies that points are relatively open in nowhere dense subsets. Perhaps more to the point, every subset of a nowhere dense set is nowhere dense, hence closed by hypothesis.

As for your question about cofinite topologies: Finite subspaces of cofinite topological spaces are discrete, because finite subsets are closed. (The same is true in any $T_1$ space.) This doesn't mean that subsets of finite sets are open, but rather that they are relatively open.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.