Is It Correct to Say a Light Bulb Is Short-Circuited When a Switch Bypasses It?

Hi all,I would like to have a clarification on the term "short-circuit".
To illustrate my question, please refer to the simple circuit.
In the circuit, treated to be an ideal one, when the switch is closed, clearly there would not be any current flowing through the light bulb.My question is, is it correct if I describes the situation as "the light bulb is short-circuited when the switch is closed"? If not, how to actually describe this situation where no current flows through the light bulb since there is an alternative path with (virtually) no resistance?Thanks very much.

Kim, you are absolutely correct, when the switch is closed it will short-circuit the light bulb.A short-circuit is a zero or very low resistance connection, usually but not necessarily unwanted, across an electrical component.  In this case the short circuit is across the light bulb via the switch.  It could be that some bare wires feeding the light bulb touched together, that would have the same effect and would also be called a short-circuit. A short circuit usually causes a fault of some sort if it is unwanted.  This may cause unwanted effects in the equipment, it may cause a protection circuit (for instance a fuse or a circuit breaker) to operate, or in extreme cases it may cause catastrophic effects like burning wires out or starting a fire. So short circuits are usually undesirable but my be intentional, for instance you may read in a circuit description something like "Switch S1 short-circuits transistor TR2 and starts the circuit, which then turns on TR2 to keep the circuit working".  Here the short-circuit is obviously intentional. Have I answered your question suitably?

[User comment deleted]