[Last Visible Dog]

You're arguing semantics. It's what I said. The function outputs n+1 gaps and not 2n when you put in n fossils.

Actually you are arguing semantics and I am arguing logic.

There is no question each new missing link creates two new gaps - no matter how you try to word it:

A-------Z one gap a-z

A---M---Z two new gaps a-m and m-z (a-z no longer exists)

A-G-M---Z two new gaps a-g and g-m (a-m no longer exists)

A-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps m-q and q-z (m-z no longer exists)

A-C-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps a-c and c-g (a-g no longer exists)

ad infinitum

[Last Visible Dog]

The function outputs n+1 gaps and not 2n when you put in n fossils.

Wrong.

The function outputs (n+2)-1 gaps

[VadeRetro]

Actually you are arguing semantics and I am arguing logic.

Who is your target audience here? The person dumb enough to be fooled? Is this person allowed to stay up this late?

I have correctly stated the output of the function for all values of n, not just n = 1. The general solution is always preferred to special cases.

I gave an example of adding three fossils and getting out four gaps and cited that the function is f(n) = n + 1, not n * 2. Please show for the case of n = 50 where my version is wrong and yours is correct.