Yes it's a real question, since there's nothing that says that a particular misclassification must happen. Watching cars go by on the road, one might suspect that at least one is driven by an alligator, but nothing says that it must be, per se, even the law of large numbers.
Nobody said this particular misclassification must occur. But there will be misclassifications, which is what your original question asked. Since you know the answer, why ask the question? That's why I asked you if what you asked was a real question.
Yes they did, I said that. But it was a claim made as a question, because I didn't know whether it was actually true. I still can't demonstrate formally why this would be so, because again, the reasoning and even veracity of the claim is still in question due to lack of anything but a hand-waved answer.
There is no need to formally demonstrate. The veracity is clearly not in question. It must be true, due to the existence of the article we are commenting on now.
If you want to argue for the general case, you can simply prove the negation is false. Since it is incorrect to say that a network trained with a tiny percentage of possible inputs will never misclassify, it is true that a network trained in such a way will eventually misclassify. This is bolstered by training any network and seeing they always will misclassify something.
> Yes they did, I said that.
You didn't say that. You said a misclassification would happen on some inputs. That is different from saying on these specific inputs.