MathLabs
Step 1 of 5: From an astronomically large threshold to a computable one
In plain words

Vinogradov proved in 1937, using the circle method, that every sufficiently large odd number is a sum of three primes — but his proof gave no explicit bound on 'sufficiently large'. Decades of work made the threshold effective and then smaller: by 2002, Liu and Wang had brought it down to about C≈e3100≈101342C\approx e^{3100}\approx 10^{1342}, a number so large that checking every smaller odd number by computer is physically impossible (more than the number of picoseconds since the Big Bang). Helfgott's goal was not to prove a new qualitative statement — that was settled in 1937 — but to shrink the threshold CC enough that direct computation could take over below it, finally making the full statement unconditionally true for every single odd n>5n>5.

∀ n>5 odd:n=p1+p2+p3,Vinogradov (1937): true for n>C (ineffective, later C≈101300)\forall\, n>5 \text{ odd}: \quad n = p_1+p_2+p_3, \qquad \text{Vinogradov (1937): true for } n > C \ (\text{ineffective, later } C\approx 10^{1300})
Detailed analysis

Helfgott's own papers (arXiv:1305.2897 for major arcs, arXiv:1205.5252 and 1305.3062 for minor arcs and the numerical companion) restate the goal precisely: reduce Vinogradov's ineffective 'sufficiently large' to an explicit CC small enough that a computer verification of all remaining odd n≤Cn\le C becomes feasible within available computing resources — a threshold on the order of 102710^{27}–103010^{30}, not 10130010^{1300}. The next three steps carry out the analytic half of this program (the circle method with fully explicit constants); the final step supplies the matching computational half.

Terms in this step
Ineffective vs. effective bound
An 'ineffective' proof shows a threshold CC exists but gives no algorithm to compute it; an 'effective' one gives an explicit numerical value, even if impractically large, that can in principle be checked by finite computation.