And from a math perspective, they don't need to be any different. A simplistic 2D line maze / labyrinth like those shown can have all the same features, just shaped differently. Secondary false routes, merging alternate routes, shape features designed to disguise routes, routes that loop back to the main route. And the center is effectively the same as reaching the opposite side. As long as routes do not cross, not sure if there's any known features that cannot be implemented in both topologies. That's too far off in math professor land.
Notably, Wikipedia appears to agree that most scholars seem to view the idea that a labyrinth is supposed to be the word for a single path puzzle, vs a maze that has any form of "trickiness". There's also a lot of the cultural issues, the article doesn't really touch on. That it's supposed to be relaxing, except most mythological labyrinths were "murder the monsters" or "murder the pyramid looters".
The article says the Minotaur myth’s labyrinth was “obviously a maze”, but I doubt it.
In the myth, Ariadne gave Theseus a ball of thread (a clew) on the advice of Daedalus, the creator of the labyrinth [1]. And “Theseus followed Daedalus' instructions given to Ariadne: go forwards, always down, and never left or right” [3] "till he found the Minotaur asleep in the inmost recess" [2].
Getting a "clew" instead of a map from the labyrinth's creator makes me think it's likely symbolic... or that Daedalus expected Theseus to do a DFS search? Plus the “clew” wasn't strictly needed, since reversing those instructions for finding the Minotaur would've got him out again.
That makes me think the Minotaur was trapped in a proper single-path labyrinth.
Of course it’s just interpretation, and some think differently [4], which makes this way more interesting!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#Theseus_and_the_Minota...
[2]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19...
[3]: https://www.hellenic.org.au/post/theseus-and-the-minotaur-th...
[4]: Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#cite_ref-5 . But note the book it cites, from my reading of it, actually says something more nuanced and subject to interpretation.
If we're being honest, the article contents were imprecise rambling crap, rather than useful reflections on language. That's why we're reflecting on the actually interesting title question, imo.