Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Goldbach conjecture
> There comes a point at least for me, when that data is entirelyThere were no grounds for believing that Li(n) would always be greater,
> convincing. I haven't looked at the relationship between pi(n) and Li
> (n) , but was there was *really* convincing grounds to believe Li(n)
> would always remain greater than pi(n) ?
the problem was that nobody could find a value for which pi(n) became
greater, until Littlewood managed to show the existence of such a point.
[In fact Littlewood showed that pi(n)>Li(n) infinitely often, and also
Li(n)>pi(n) infinitely often.]
I might add that this was purely an existence result, the constant in
question being ineffective, i.e. couldn't be calculated. It was many
years before a value, Skewes number, was placed on it.