When using and examining Kakutani's fixed-point theorem, I've got a question about upper hemicontinuity.
A correspondence $f:X\rightarrow2^Y$ is a point-to-set mapping.
One way to define upper hemicontinuity of $f$ is as below.
Given such a $f$, $f$ is said to be upper hemicontinuous at $\bar{x}$ if for every open set $V$ such that $f(\bar{x})\subset V$, there exists an open set $U$ such that $\bar{x}\in U$ and $x\in U$ implies $f(x)\subset V$.
However, I once read a different definition of upper hemicontinuity on a textbook:
Given such a correspondence $f$, $f$ is said to be upper hemicontinuous at $\bar{x}$ if for every sequence $\{x_n\}\rightarrow\bar{x}$ and for every open set $V$ such that $f(\bar{x})\subset V$, there exists an $N\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $f(x_n)\subset V,~\forall n\geq N$.
Can someone help me prove that these two definitions are equivalent?
(It's easy to prove from the former to the latter, but what about the other way?)
Given an open set $V\subset Y$, denote $\widetilde V =\{x: f(x)\subset V\}$.
The first definition says: if $\bar x\in \widetilde V$, then $\bar x$ is an interior point of $\widetilde V$.
The second definition says: if $\bar x\in \widetilde V$ and $x_n\to x$, then $x_n\in \widetilde V$ for all large $n$.
Now all multi-valuedness disappears from the view: we are staring at the sequential characterization of interior points. Indeed, the following three are equivalent in first-countable topological spaces: