Chebyshev's bias-conjecture and the Riemann Hypothesis












3














Chebyshev's bias-conjecture that says "there are more primes of the form 4k + 3 than of the form 4k + 1" and the Riemann Hypothesis are equivalent? That means, one implies the other (if and only if)?






nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers riemann-hypothesis







share|cite|improve this question





























    3














    Chebyshev's bias-conjecture that says "there are more primes of the form 4k + 3 than of the form 4k + 1" and the Riemann Hypothesis are equivalent? That means, one implies the other (if and only if)?






    nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers riemann-hypothesis







    share|cite|improve this question



























      3












      3








      3







      Chebyshev's bias-conjecture that says "there are more primes of the form 4k + 3 than of the form 4k + 1" and the Riemann Hypothesis are equivalent? That means, one implies the other (if and only if)?






      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers riemann-hypothesis







      share|cite|improve this question















      Chebyshev's bias-conjecture that says "there are more primes of the form 4k + 3 than of the form 4k + 1" and the Riemann Hypothesis are equivalent? That means, one implies the other (if and only if)?






      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers riemann-hypothesis




      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers riemann-hypothesis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Martin Sleziak

      2,92032028




      2,92032028










      asked 2 days ago









      Dimitris Valianatos

      623412




      623412






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          15














          Chebyshev made the following assertion, which is interpreted as saying that there are more primes of the form $4n+3$ than of the form $4n+1$:
          $$
          lim_{xtoinfty} sum_{pge3} (-1)^{(p-1)/2} e^{-p/x} = -infty.
          $$
          It was proved by Hardy/Littlewood and Landau that this assertion is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the Dirichlet $L$-function
          $$
          L(s,chi_{-4}) = 1 - 3^{-s} + 5^{-s} - 7^{-s} + 9^{-s} - 11^{-s} + cdots
          $$
          corresponding to the nonprincipal character (mod 4).




          • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math. 41 (1916), no. 1, 119–196

          • E. Landau, Über einige ältere Vermutungen und Behauptungen in der Primzahltheorie, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 1–24






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 1




            What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
            – KConrad
            yesterday












          • Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
            – Greg Martin
            yesterday










          • @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
            – kodlu
            19 hours ago












          • @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago










          • Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago





















          8














          Chebyshev's bias is consistent with the Riemann Hypothesis. I like Terry Tao's explanation in his blog:




          [..] the bias is small [..] and certainly consistent with known or conjectured positive results such as Dirichlet’s theorem or the generalised Riemann hypothesis. The reason for the Chebyshev bias can be traced back to the von Mangoldt explicit formula which relates the distribution of the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ modulo ${q}$ with the zeroes of the ${L}$-functions with period ${q}$. This formula predicts (assuming some standard conjectures like GRH) that the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ is quite unbiased modulo ${q}.$ The von Mangoldt function is mostly concentrated in the primes, but it also has a medium-sized contribution coming from squares of primes, which are of course all located in the quadratic residues modulo ${q}.$ (Cubes and higher powers of primes also make a small contribution, but these are quite negligible asymptotically.) To balance everything out, the contribution of the primes must then exhibit a small preference towards quadratic non-residues, and this is the Chebyshev bias.




          See also Rubinstein and Sarnak MR review here.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320102%2fchebyshevs-bias-conjecture-and-the-riemann-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            15














            Chebyshev made the following assertion, which is interpreted as saying that there are more primes of the form $4n+3$ than of the form $4n+1$:
            $$
            lim_{xtoinfty} sum_{pge3} (-1)^{(p-1)/2} e^{-p/x} = -infty.
            $$
            It was proved by Hardy/Littlewood and Landau that this assertion is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the Dirichlet $L$-function
            $$
            L(s,chi_{-4}) = 1 - 3^{-s} + 5^{-s} - 7^{-s} + 9^{-s} - 11^{-s} + cdots
            $$
            corresponding to the nonprincipal character (mod 4).




            • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math. 41 (1916), no. 1, 119–196

            • E. Landau, Über einige ältere Vermutungen und Behauptungen in der Primzahltheorie, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 1–24






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
              – KConrad
              yesterday












            • Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
              – Greg Martin
              yesterday










            • @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
              – kodlu
              19 hours ago












            • @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago










            • Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago


















            15














            Chebyshev made the following assertion, which is interpreted as saying that there are more primes of the form $4n+3$ than of the form $4n+1$:
            $$
            lim_{xtoinfty} sum_{pge3} (-1)^{(p-1)/2} e^{-p/x} = -infty.
            $$
            It was proved by Hardy/Littlewood and Landau that this assertion is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the Dirichlet $L$-function
            $$
            L(s,chi_{-4}) = 1 - 3^{-s} + 5^{-s} - 7^{-s} + 9^{-s} - 11^{-s} + cdots
            $$
            corresponding to the nonprincipal character (mod 4).




            • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math. 41 (1916), no. 1, 119–196

            • E. Landau, Über einige ältere Vermutungen und Behauptungen in der Primzahltheorie, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 1–24






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
              – KConrad
              yesterday












            • Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
              – Greg Martin
              yesterday










            • @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
              – kodlu
              19 hours ago












            • @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago










            • Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago
















            15












            15








            15






            Chebyshev made the following assertion, which is interpreted as saying that there are more primes of the form $4n+3$ than of the form $4n+1$:
            $$
            lim_{xtoinfty} sum_{pge3} (-1)^{(p-1)/2} e^{-p/x} = -infty.
            $$
            It was proved by Hardy/Littlewood and Landau that this assertion is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the Dirichlet $L$-function
            $$
            L(s,chi_{-4}) = 1 - 3^{-s} + 5^{-s} - 7^{-s} + 9^{-s} - 11^{-s} + cdots
            $$
            corresponding to the nonprincipal character (mod 4).




            • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math. 41 (1916), no. 1, 119–196

            • E. Landau, Über einige ältere Vermutungen und Behauptungen in der Primzahltheorie, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 1–24






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Chebyshev made the following assertion, which is interpreted as saying that there are more primes of the form $4n+3$ than of the form $4n+1$:
            $$
            lim_{xtoinfty} sum_{pge3} (-1)^{(p-1)/2} e^{-p/x} = -infty.
            $$
            It was proved by Hardy/Littlewood and Landau that this assertion is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the Dirichlet $L$-function
            $$
            L(s,chi_{-4}) = 1 - 3^{-s} + 5^{-s} - 7^{-s} + 9^{-s} - 11^{-s} + cdots
            $$
            corresponding to the nonprincipal character (mod 4).




            • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and the theory of the distribution of primes, Acta Math. 41 (1916), no. 1, 119–196

            • E. Landau, Über einige ältere Vermutungen und Behauptungen in der Primzahltheorie, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 1–24







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            Greg Martin

            8,31813559




            8,31813559








            • 1




              What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
              – KConrad
              yesterday












            • Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
              – Greg Martin
              yesterday










            • @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
              – kodlu
              19 hours ago












            • @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago










            • Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago
















            • 1




              What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
              – KConrad
              yesterday












            • Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
              – Greg Martin
              yesterday










            • @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
              – kodlu
              19 hours ago












            • @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago










            • Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
              – KConrad
              4 hours ago










            1




            1




            What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
            – KConrad
            yesterday






            What was the paper of Ingham? I only knew that Landau in 1918 had shown the equivalence (Hardy and Littlewood did GRH for the character mod 4 implies Chebyshev's conjecture). See Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), pp. 1-24 and 213-219.
            – KConrad
            yesterday














            Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
            – Greg Martin
            yesterday




            Sorry, brain fart on my end—it was indeed Landau. Thanks @KConrad
            – Greg Martin
            yesterday












            @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
            – kodlu
            19 hours ago






            @GregMartin (sorry for the dumb question) does $e^{-u}$ in your answer stand for $exp{-2pi i u}$?
            – kodlu
            19 hours ago














            @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago




            @kodlu what Greg writes is correct. For each fixed $x > 0$, $e^{-p/x} rightarrow 0$ as $p rightarrow infty$ through the primes; the series converges for each $x$. Using something like $e^{-2pi i p/x}$ could make each term of the series of magnitude 1 and it would not converge.
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago












            Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago






            Chebyshev actually wrote the series with all signs changed, so using $(-1)^{(p+1)/2}$, and his variable was $c = 1/x$ tending to $0$, so his conjecture was $sum_{p > 2} (-1)^{(p+1)/2}e^{-pc} rightarrow infty$ as $c rightarrow 0^+$ with the sum running over the odd primes. See what Chebyshev wrote in Google books: books.google.com/…
            – KConrad
            4 hours ago













            8














            Chebyshev's bias is consistent with the Riemann Hypothesis. I like Terry Tao's explanation in his blog:




            [..] the bias is small [..] and certainly consistent with known or conjectured positive results such as Dirichlet’s theorem or the generalised Riemann hypothesis. The reason for the Chebyshev bias can be traced back to the von Mangoldt explicit formula which relates the distribution of the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ modulo ${q}$ with the zeroes of the ${L}$-functions with period ${q}$. This formula predicts (assuming some standard conjectures like GRH) that the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ is quite unbiased modulo ${q}.$ The von Mangoldt function is mostly concentrated in the primes, but it also has a medium-sized contribution coming from squares of primes, which are of course all located in the quadratic residues modulo ${q}.$ (Cubes and higher powers of primes also make a small contribution, but these are quite negligible asymptotically.) To balance everything out, the contribution of the primes must then exhibit a small preference towards quadratic non-residues, and this is the Chebyshev bias.




            See also Rubinstein and Sarnak MR review here.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              8














              Chebyshev's bias is consistent with the Riemann Hypothesis. I like Terry Tao's explanation in his blog:




              [..] the bias is small [..] and certainly consistent with known or conjectured positive results such as Dirichlet’s theorem or the generalised Riemann hypothesis. The reason for the Chebyshev bias can be traced back to the von Mangoldt explicit formula which relates the distribution of the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ modulo ${q}$ with the zeroes of the ${L}$-functions with period ${q}$. This formula predicts (assuming some standard conjectures like GRH) that the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ is quite unbiased modulo ${q}.$ The von Mangoldt function is mostly concentrated in the primes, but it also has a medium-sized contribution coming from squares of primes, which are of course all located in the quadratic residues modulo ${q}.$ (Cubes and higher powers of primes also make a small contribution, but these are quite negligible asymptotically.) To balance everything out, the contribution of the primes must then exhibit a small preference towards quadratic non-residues, and this is the Chebyshev bias.




              See also Rubinstein and Sarnak MR review here.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                8












                8








                8






                Chebyshev's bias is consistent with the Riemann Hypothesis. I like Terry Tao's explanation in his blog:




                [..] the bias is small [..] and certainly consistent with known or conjectured positive results such as Dirichlet’s theorem or the generalised Riemann hypothesis. The reason for the Chebyshev bias can be traced back to the von Mangoldt explicit formula which relates the distribution of the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ modulo ${q}$ with the zeroes of the ${L}$-functions with period ${q}$. This formula predicts (assuming some standard conjectures like GRH) that the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ is quite unbiased modulo ${q}.$ The von Mangoldt function is mostly concentrated in the primes, but it also has a medium-sized contribution coming from squares of primes, which are of course all located in the quadratic residues modulo ${q}.$ (Cubes and higher powers of primes also make a small contribution, but these are quite negligible asymptotically.) To balance everything out, the contribution of the primes must then exhibit a small preference towards quadratic non-residues, and this is the Chebyshev bias.




                See also Rubinstein and Sarnak MR review here.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Chebyshev's bias is consistent with the Riemann Hypothesis. I like Terry Tao's explanation in his blog:




                [..] the bias is small [..] and certainly consistent with known or conjectured positive results such as Dirichlet’s theorem or the generalised Riemann hypothesis. The reason for the Chebyshev bias can be traced back to the von Mangoldt explicit formula which relates the distribution of the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ modulo ${q}$ with the zeroes of the ${L}$-functions with period ${q}$. This formula predicts (assuming some standard conjectures like GRH) that the von Mangoldt function ${Lambda}$ is quite unbiased modulo ${q}.$ The von Mangoldt function is mostly concentrated in the primes, but it also has a medium-sized contribution coming from squares of primes, which are of course all located in the quadratic residues modulo ${q}.$ (Cubes and higher powers of primes also make a small contribution, but these are quite negligible asymptotically.) To balance everything out, the contribution of the primes must then exhibit a small preference towards quadratic non-residues, and this is the Chebyshev bias.




                See also Rubinstein and Sarnak MR review here.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                kodlu

                3,59721727




                3,59721727






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320102%2fchebyshevs-bias-conjecture-and-the-riemann-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    1300-talet

                    Image
                    Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
                    Read more

                    1300-talet

                    Image
                    Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
                    Read more

                    Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8

                    Image
                    0 I need to display a custom attribute bellow the product name and I don't know how can I call this attribute. I am editing the file /app/design/frontend/templatemela/MAG100219_1/template/catalog/product/view.phtml But how can I call this attribute in php? I tried calling a string echo with the name I put in the attribute, but it didn't work. Code is as below: <div class="page-title product-title"> <h1><?php echo $_helper->productAttribute($_product, $_product->getName(), 'name') ?></h1> </div> <div class="codigoinmetro"> <h2><?php echo $_helper->productAttribute($_product, $_product->getName(), 'registroinmetro') ?></h2> </div> php attrib...
                    Read more