In A New Kind of Science: Open Problems and Projects(pg. 36).

How can one extend recursive function definitions to continuous numbers? What is the continuous analog of the Ackermann function? The symbolic forms of the Ackermann function with a fixed first argument seem to have obvious interpretations for arbitrary real or complex values of the second argument. But is there a general way to extend these kinds of recursive definitions to continuous cases? Given a way to do this, how does it apply to recursive definitions like those on page 130? ... Stephen Wolfram

The following is an example of a flow of a map from MO f(f(x))=exp(x)-1 and other functions “just in the middle” between linear and exponential. .

Consider $g(x)=e^x-1$. Then $g^n(x)= x+\frac{1}{2!}n x^2+\frac{1}{3!} \left(\frac{3 n^2}{2}-\frac{n}{2}\right) x^3+\frac{1}{4!} \left(3 n^3-\frac{5 n^2}{2}+\frac{n}{2}\right) x^4 $ $+\frac{1}{5!} \left(\frac{15 n^4}{2}-\frac{65 n^3}{6}+5 n^2-\frac{2 n}{3}\right) x^5 $

$ +\frac{1}{6!} \left(\frac{45 n^5}{2}-\frac{385 n^4}{8}+\frac{445 n^3}{12}-\frac{91 n^2}{8}+\frac{11 n}{12}\right) x^6 $

$ +\frac{1}{7!}\left(\frac{315 n^6}{4}-\frac{1827 n^5}{8}+\frac{6125 n^4}{24}-\frac{1043 n^3}{8}+\frac{637 n^2}{24}-\frac{3 n}{4}\right) x^7 + \cdots$

Note that $g^0(x)=x, g^1(x)=e^x-1$ and that a symbolic mathematical program will also confirm that $g^m(g^n(x))=g^{m+n}(x) +O(x^8)$.

The half-iterate is also computed correctly, $g^\frac{1}{2}(x)=x+\frac{x ^2}{4}+ \frac{x^3}{48} +\frac{x^5}{3840}-\frac{7 x^6}{92160} +\frac{x^7}{645120}$ See MO What’s a natural candidate for an analytic function that interpolates the tower function? for more background.

**Questions**

- What evidence is there for believing that maps do not have flows? Is there anything known that would prevent proofs to establish existence, uniqueness, and convergence? References would be nice but an explanation would be better.
- Consider $f(f(x))=g(x)$ where $g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Can $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be an appropriate solution or must $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$?
- Likewise, is there any reason beyond aesthetics for believing that maps have flows?