# A subset of a topological space is disconnected if and only if it can be covered by two non-empty-in-the-subset and disjoint-in-the-subset sets that are open in the space itself

This page is a stub, so it contains little or minimal information and is on a to-do list for being expanded.The message provided is:
Taking a break now, flesh out in the future

## Statement

Let [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath] be a topological space and let [ilmath]A\in\mathcal{P}(X)[/ilmath] be an arbitrary subset of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], then[1]:

• [ilmath]\exists U,V\in\mathcal{J}[\underbrace{\ U\cap A\ne\emptyset\ }_{U\text{ non-empty in }A}\wedge\underbrace{\ V\cap A\ne\emptyset\ }_{V\text{ non-empty in } A}\wedge\underbrace{\ U\cap V\cap A=\emptyset\ }_{U,\ V\text{ disjoint in }A}\wedge\underbrace{\ A\subseteq U\cup V\ }_{\text{covers }A}][/ilmath] - the "disjoint in [ilmath]A[/ilmath]" condition is perhaps better written as: [ilmath](U\cap A)\cap(V\cap A)=\emptyset[/ilmath]
• In words - "there exist two sets open in [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath] that are disjoint in [ilmath]A[/ilmath] and non-empty in [ilmath]A[/ilmath] that cover [ilmath]A[/ilmath]"

TODO: There is a formulation similar this (see p114, Mendelson) that works in terms of closed rather than open sets, link to it!

## Proof

This page requires one or more proofs to be filled in, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. Unless there are any caveats mentioned below the statement comes from a reliable source. As always, Warnings and limitations will be clearly shown and possibly highlighted if very important (see template:Caution et al).
The message provided is:
This is actually rather important and ought to be done

This proof has been marked as an page requiring an easy proof