Talk:Logarithmic integral

I don't think this disambiguation page makes much sense. The logarithmic integral function is by far the most common meaning of the term. Fredrik Johansson 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other meaning seems to be important, too. Scholar.google search "logarithmic integral" shows 118 references to the Koosis' book. --Kompik 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Fred here. Without someone writing an article about this Koosis book (wow that comes up with 384 results on Google at the moment!!! So I wouldn't be too suprised if the article on this book was deleted for being unnotable :P) and since both of the other meanings are explained in the other article, this disambiguation is more of an ambiguation. I have put the merger frames on so someone can sort this out. --Jason Bell 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have too questions: How do you come to the number 384? You write that both meaning are explained in the logarithmic integral function article. I wasn't able to find it. (But, as I write bellow, I agree with your arguments.) --Kompik 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fredrik Johansson; this page should be for the page now at logarithmic integral function. The other probably shouldn't even be mentioned, but if it is it should only be an italic line at the top of the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation "by far the most common meaning" seems to be fair enough. I just cannot resist to say, that if something was notable enough for CUP to publish a book about it, it might be notable enough for wikipedia too. But I definitely agree with the opinion that if anyone comes to this page, he is probably looking for li(x) and Li(x). And in the present form there is maybe not enough information about the Koosis' logaritmic integral to make an article. Long story short -- I agree with CRGreathouse. --Kompik 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]