" 

 == 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 perhaps even disconcerting if the least upper bound (Skewes' number) was given by an integer exactly.  For, while the prime counting function takes on only integer values in its range, the logarithmic integral function is continuous (even if defined around its point of discontinuity by the Cauchy principal value of the defining integral), and so moves through a range of values continuously except at prime arguments.  This would seem to indicate that the chances of Skewes' number being an integer are pretty much nil.  If this seems to be too picky, feel free to ignore me, but it seems to me that placing the article in the integers category would likely be mathematically incorrect.   "