There are some pretty confused arguments here
. Of course image resolution has no practical bearing on print size. What determines the maximum print size is the size of the paper your printer can handle; and if you don't mind joining separate sheets together, then you could cover a whole field, or a mountain or the Empire State building with a print, if you wanted to.
But no matter how big or small your print is, if your camera didn't have the pixel density to capture, say a single strand of hair in a particular shot, then no matter how good your lens and no matter how big your print, you'll never see that strand of hair, from close up or from afar.
There are practical limits to the resolving power of sensors and that limit is described as the Nyquist limit which essentially means that one row of pixels is needed to record one line. In practice it's usually slightly more than one row of pixels that's required and there appears to be some variation depending on sensor design and of course the MTF response of the lens used.
As a general rule, if there are two or more contributing components to image quality, such as film and lens, or sensor and lens, the system resolution, or final result, will be somewhat worse than that of the lowest resolving component.