I'm following through a book, and I'm understanding the proof of the proposition that ultrafilters are exactly prime filters.
The proof that ultrafilters are prime goes as the following.
Suppose $F$ is ultrafilter on a set $X$ that is not prime. Then there are $A, B \subseteq X$ with $A \cup B \in F$ but $A, B \notin F$. We have proved before in the text that a filter $U$ on set $X$ is an ultrafilter if and only if for every $A \subseteq X$, $A \notin U$ if and only if there is $B \in U$ with $A \cap B = \emptyset$.
So we may find $A', B' \in F$ with $A \cap A' = \emptyset = B \cap B'$. The proof says that this implies $(A \cup B) \cap (A' \cup B') = \emptyset$. I'm having trouble with this line as $A \cap A' = \emptyset = B \cap B'$ does not imply $(A \cup B) \cap (A' \cup B') = \emptyset$. For example, take $A = \{0,1\}$ $A' = \{2,3\}$, $B = \{2,4\}$, $B' = \{1,5\}$.
So with what condition do we know that $(A \cup B) \cap (A' \cup B') = \emptyset$?
After this line, the proof is easy as $(A \cup B) \cap (A' \cup B') = \emptyset$ if and only if $A \cup B \notin F$.
Thanks!

It appears to be a typo. $A',B'\in\mathscr{F}$, so $A'\cap B'\in\mathscr{F}$, and clearly
$$(A\cup B)\cap(A'\cap B')=\varnothing\,,$$
implying that $A\cup B\notin\mathscr{F}$.