For me, the following is a bit that seems particularly prone to be invalidated, even more so considering that the author doesn't present any proof of it:<p>> Here, we notice that if we had one more span, <v3 , v4 , v5 >, for example, it would be connected to <v1 , v2 , v3 >, but not overlapped with <v1 , v2 , v3 >. Being aware of this difference is important since the overlapped spans imply the consecutive ‘<i>’s, just like <v1, v1, v2> and <v1, v2, v3>, which correspond to two consecutive ‘</i>’s: (c2 , <i>) and (c3 , </i>). Therefore, the overlapped spans exhibit some kind of transitivity. That is, if s1 and s2 are two overlapped spans, the s1 ∪ s2 must be a new, but bigger span. Applying this operation to all the spans over a p-path, we will get a ’transitive closure’ of overlapped spans.