In the concept of fractional iteration of the exponential function ("tetration") the property of $$\exp^{\circ a}(\exp^{\circ b}(z))=\exp^{\circ b}(\exp^{\circ a}(z))=\exp^{\circ a+b}(z) \tag 1$$ has been/is a very basic, even a foundational one, for my understanding. In some recent consideration of n-periodic points it occured to me, that this cannot hold (independently of the style of interpolation, be it "regular"/"Schroeder-" or "Kneser-" or any other method), where for example with the 3-periodic points $p_1$, $p_2=\exp(p_1)$, $p_3=\exp(p_2)$, $p_1=\exp(p_3)=\exp^{\circ 3}(p_1)$ we have with some point $p_{1.1} = \exp^{\circ 0.1}(p_1)$ the following $$ p_{1.1}=\exp^{\circ 0.1}(\exp^{\circ 3}(p_1))=\exp^{\circ 0.1}(p_1) \tag {2.1} $$ $$ \text{ but } $$ $$ \exp^{\circ 3}(\exp^{\circ 0.1}(p_1)) \ne p_{1.1} \tag {2.2} $$ This can easily be seen by the argument, - that the infinity of 3_periodic points (as well as in general n-periodic points) is *countable*, - a continuous curve connecting $p_1 \to p_2 \to p_3 \to p_1 \to ...$ if it were itself periodic must represent *uncountably* many 3-periodic points, but which is a contradiction. Another, perhaps better known, argument comes from the allegory of a "hair" coined by R. L. Devaney in his study of periodic points in the exponential function. It says (paraphrased here) - that in an epsilon neighbourhood of a periodic point (say $p_1$) the iteration of any point (except of $p_1$ itself) diverges, even chaotically, towards infinity. Of course this implies as well that there cannot be a trajectory of fractional iterates, whose partial curves $l_{12}=[p_1,p_2]$, $l_{23}=[p_2,p_3]$ and $l_{31}=[p_3,p_1]$ have the 3-periodicity $\exp^{\circ 3}(l_{12}) \ne l_{12}$. (Actually that iterations blow the partial curves out quickly and few such iterations chaotize completely any graphical plot). This inequality in *(2.1)* breaks the -in my view- foundational equality *(1)* such that I now question at all the meaningfulness of the fractional iteration in such cases. - Do I possibly misrepresent/misinterpret the *foundational* role of *(1)*? - Has tetration been developed so far with well knowing and possibly answering the problem in *(2.2)*? ---------- *A discussion starting at some initial irritation because of existence of 6-periodic points, the chaotizing of the interpolated trajectories, towards more precise graphical display and towards finding the thoughts presented here can be checked at* [tetrationforum][1] ------------------ A picture illustrates the partial trajectories and their non-periodicity. The coordinates of the periodic points can be approximated to arbitrary precision by simple fixpoint-iteration, or Newton-iteration starting at the given coordinates. [![image][1]][1] [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/twUOs.png [1]: https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/showthread.php?tid=1277