I came across the following definition of orientability.
Let $O$ be the "$0$-section" of the exterior n-bundle $\Lambda^nM^*$ with $M$ being a connected differentiable manifold of dimension $n$. It is said that $M$ is orientable if $\Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O$ has two components; an orientation is a choice of one of the two components of $\Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O$. It is said that $M$ is non-orientable if $\Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O$ is connected.
Now, this seems like a really good definition. But I have a problem understanding how it is equivalent to saying that an orientable manifold $M$ admits a nowhere-vanishing smooth $n$-form. In particular, if the definitions are to be equivalent, the following statement must be true.
$$ \Gamma(\Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O) = \varnothing \Leftrightarrow \Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O \text{ is connected}$$
I don't see why that should be the case. For example, I could take a Möbius band (which can be seen as the $2$-dimensional cotangent bundle over the $1$-dimensional Möbius circle) and start cutting through it without touching the base circle (say a constant $2 cm$. off of it). I would go around twice before completing the section. So I do have a smooth non-vanishing $1$-form here, although I believe it is supposed to be non-orientable by the given definition.
Another example could be an exterior $n$-bundle which has the topology of a torus (does that exist?) which clearly admits a smooth section of $\Lambda^nM^* \smallsetminus O$.