Relation between convergence class and convergence space A convergence class is defined from nlab

A convergence space is a set $S$ together with a relation $→$ from $ℱS$ to $S$, where $ℱS$ is the set of filters on $S$; if $F→x$, we say that $F$ converges to $x$ or that $x$ is a limit of $F$. This must satisfy some axioms:
  
  
*
  
*Centred: The principal ultrafilter $F_x=\{A∣x∈A\}$ at $x$ converges to $x$;
  
*Isotone: If $F⊆G$ and $F→x$, then $G→x$;
  
*Directed: If $F→x$ and $G→x$, then some filter contained in the intersection $F∩G$ converges to $x$. In light of (2), it follows that $F∩G→x$ itself. (Strictly speaking, the relation should not be called directed unless also every point is a limit of some filter, but this follows from 1.)
  
  
  A convergence space is topological if it comes from a topology on S.

My questions:


*

*
The definition can also be phrased in terms of nets; a net $ν$ converges to $x$ if and only if its eventuality filter (defined as
  follows) converges to $x$.
Let $X$ be a set, let $D$ be a directed set, and let $n$ be a function from $D$ to $X$, so that $n$ is a net in $X$. Given a
  subset $A$ of $X$, $n$ is eventually in $A$ if, for some $i$ in $D$,
  for each $j≥i$ in $D$, $n_j∈A$. The collection $F_n$ of all those
  subsets $A$ such that $x$ is eventually in $A$ is a proper filter on
  $X$, called the eventuality filter of $n$.

I was wondering how the definition of a convergence space can be
equivalently rephrased in terms of nets?

*How is the definition of a convergence space related the definition of a convergence class which is defined
in terms of nets as following (quoted from Pete Clark at MO):

In the section "Convergence Classes" at the end of Chapter 2 of General Topology, Kelley lists the following axioms for convergent
  nets in a topological space $X$
a) If $S$ is a net such that $Sn=s$ for each $n$ [i.e., a constant net], then $S$ converges to $s$.
b) If $S$ converges to $s$, so does each subnet.
c) If $S$ does not converge to $s$, then there is a subnet of $S$, no subnet of which converges to $s$.
d) (Theorem on iterated limits): Let $D$ be a directed set. For each $m\in D$, let $E_m$ be a directed set, let $F$ be the product
  $D \times \prod_{m \in D} E_m$ and for $(m,f)$ in $F$ let
  $R(m,f)=(m,f(m))$. If $S(m,n)$ is an element of $X$ for each $m∈D$
  and $n\in E_m$ and $\lim_m \lim_n S(m,n)=s$, then $S∘R$ converges to
  $s$.
He has previously shown that in any topological space, convergence of nets satisfies a) through d). (The first three are easy; part d)
  is, I believe, an original result of his.) In this section he proves
  the converse: given a set $X$ and a set $C$ of pairs (net,point)
  satisfying the four axioms above, there exists a unique topology
  on $X$ such that a net $S$ converges to $s∈X$ iff $(S,s)∈C$.

In particular, Kelley's convergence class is topologizable while nlab's convergence space may not be. If by omitting some of its axioms, will the generalization of convergence class become equivalent to nlab's convergence space?
Thanks and regards!
 A: For a net and its eventuality filter we have that they have exactly the same limits in $X$. Because a net $n$ converges to $p$ iff $n$ is eventually in every neighbourhood of $p$ iff all neighbourhoods of $p$ are in the eventuality filter of $n$ iff the eventuality filter of $n$ converges to $p$.
The eventuality filter is the filter generated by the filterbase of tails of the net: if $n: D \rightarrow X$ is a net (defined on some directed set $D$) then a tail of $n$ is a set of the form $T(j) = \left\{n(i) : i \ge j \right\}$, for some $j \in D$. The tails form a filterbase because the set $D$ is directed. So we have a natural function $F$ that sends a net $n$ to a filterbase $F(n)$, such that $n \rightarrow p$ iff $F(n) \rightarrow p$.
There is also a function going back: if we start with a filterbase $\mathcal{B}$, we can define a directed order on $X \times \mathcal{B}$ by $(x,B) \le (x',B')$ iff $B' \subset B$,
(directed of course because $\mathcal{B}$ is a filterbase!) and a natural net $G(\mathcal{B})$ that sends $(x,B)$ to $x$. Then again (check the definitions) we know that $\mathcal{B}$ converges to $p$ (defined as: every neighbourhood of $p$ contains a member of $\mathcal{B}$, or equivalently, the generated filter $\mathcal{F}$ by $\mathcal{B}$, i.e. all supersets of members of the filterbase, converges to $p$) iff the net $G(\mathcal{B})$ converges to $p$.
Also one can check (a bit tedious) that $F(G(\mathcal{B}))= \mathcal{B}$ and reversely that the nets $n$ and $G(F(n))$ are equivalent, in the sense that they are subnets of each other, if we define subnet in the classical (Kelly) way. They're not identical, as they are defined on different index sets.
Long story short, we can translate all axioms for net convergence to ones for filterable convergence and vice versa.
The above 3 axioms for filters seem quite natural, and have net analogues. What Kelly considers is a characterisation (with extra axioms) of those convergence spaces that come from a topology. His axiom c) is a typical one that might fail for non-topological convergences.
