I was working with this Theorem and somehow I don't see clearly how it's being proved.
Theorem: Let $(X, \tau)$ be topological space and $A_\alpha \subset X$ be connected for every $\alpha \in I$, such that $ X=\displaystyle \cup_{\alpha \in I} A_\alpha$. If there exists a $\alpha_0 \in I$ such that for every $\alpha \in I$ , $A_{\alpha_0} \cap A_\alpha \neq \emptyset $, then $X$ is connected.
Proof: Suppose $X$ is not connected, we will see that if $A_\alpha$ is connected for every $\alpha \neq \alpha_0$, then $A_{\alpha_0}$ is not connected.
Let $(A,B)$ open sets such that they are disjoint, nonempty and their union is $X$, we'll prove that $A \cap A_{\alpha_0} \neq \emptyset , B \cap A_{\alpha_0} \neq \emptyset$ ( meaning $A \cap A_{\alpha_0}$ and $ B \cap A_{\alpha_0} $ also satisfy the previous requirements * ). Wlog, suppose $A \cap A_{\alpha_0} \neq \emptyset$ because $A_\alpha$ is connected for every $\alpha \neq \alpha_0$, and by prop(2), either $A_\alpha \subset A$ or $A_\alpha \subset B$. Let $\eta=\{ \alpha \in I: A_\alpha \subset B\}$, note that $\eta \neq \emptyset$ otherwise $A_\alpha \subset A, \forall \alpha \in I$ and $B=B \cap (\displaystyle \cup_{\alpha \in I} )$ would be empty. Take $\alpha \in \eta$ this implies $A_\alpha \subset B$ and therefore $\emptyset \neq A_\alpha \subset B \subset A_\alpha \cup A_{\alpha_0} \subset B \cap A_{\alpha_0} $
(*) Also means that they're proving $A_{\alpha_0}$ is a disconnected subset of $X$.
Proposition 2 Let $A, B$ open sets, disjoint, nonempty and $X = A \cup B$ for $X$ a topological space, and let $C \subset X$ a connected subset. Then $C \subset A$ or $C \subset B$.
I know is very straightforward with respect to prove that $A_{\alpha_0}$ it's a disconnected subset, I get it, but how do you come with the idea that proving $X$ is connected means to prove something is a disconnected subset? More precisely the bold part.
Thank you in advance.
The part in bold is a variation of the contrapositive of the theorem.
The theorem states that if $A_\alpha$ is connected for every $\alpha \in I$ and there exists $\alpha_0 \in I$ such that, for every $\alpha \in I$, $A_{\alpha_0} \cap A_\alpha \neq \emptyset$, then $X=\bigcup_{\alpha \in I}A_\alpha$ is connected.
The contrapositive of this statement is, if $X$ is not connected, then either there exists an $\alpha \in I$ such that $A_\alpha$ is not connected or for every $\alpha_0 \in I$, there exists $\alpha \in I$ such that $A_{\alpha_0} \cap A_\alpha = \emptyset$. This statement is equivalent to the theorem.
Note the since $P$ or $Q$ is equivalent to (not $Q$) implies $P$, we can rewrite the contrapositive like so.
If $X$ is not connected and there exists $a_0 \in I$ such that $A_{\alpha_0} \cap A_\alpha \neq \emptyset$, then there exists $\alpha \in I$ such that $A_\alpha$ is not connected. Again this statement is equivalent to the theorem.
Finally the statement in bold is equivalent to If $X$ is not connected and there exists $\alpha_0 \in I$ such that $A_{\alpha_0} \cap A_\alpha \neq \emptyset$, then either $A_\alpha$ is not connected for some $\alpha \neq \alpha_0$ or $A_{\alpha_0}$ is not connected. This is again equivalent to the theorem since for every $\alpha \in I$ either $\alpha=\alpha_0$ or $\alpha \neq \alpha_0$.