" == Possible Category Misplacement == I believe that the placement of this article into Category:Integers is perhaps mathematically incorrect. The article gives reference to the ""historical"" Skewes' number (i.e. the 1933 upper bound proven assuming the RH), which cannot be an integer (or rational number, for that matter) which is implied by the fact that e is irrational. The article also speaks of a Skewes' number (in some sense) in which I believe there is very little reason to believe that the ""true"" Skewes' number given by the least upper bound for a violation of the defining inequality is an integer. It seems to me that it would be very odd and unnatural and
" == Possible Category Misplacement == I believe that the placement of this article into Category:Integers is perhaps mathematically incorrect. The article gives reference to the ""historical"" Skewes' number (i.e. the 1933 upper bound proven assuming the RH), which cannot be an integer (or rational number, for that matter) which is implied by the fact that e is irrational. The article also speaks of a Skewes' number (in some sense) in which I believe there is very little reason to believe that the ""true"" Skewes' number given by the least upper bound for a violation of the defining inequality is an integer. It seems to me that it would be very odd and unnatural and would