> Indeed, I did say that it was a monad and not a `Monad`; math doesn't suffer from these implementation constraints. :-) Ah, I see :-) Indeed, from the mathem

> Indeed, I did say that it was a monad and not a `Monad`; math doesn't suffer from these implementation constraints. :-) Ah, I see :-) Indeed, from the mathematical standpoint we can both inject a vertex into the graph type with `vertex`, and flatten a graph whose nodes are graphs (the monad `join`, not to be confused with graph `join` operation that I'm using). I haven't given this much thought before, thanks for noticing this. > Oh, that makes more sense. Maybe it's worth even making just a throwaway remark to that effect? I've added the following remark: "we will call such cliques covering the whole universe complete graphs". Hopefully this helps to clarify the naming convention.