On $sup|varphi^{-1}(n)|=+infty$












8














I am trying to find an elementary proof of the following fact:




Given some $Ngeq 2$, there are $N$ distinct integers $a_1,ldots,a_N$ such that $varphi(a_1)=ldots=varphi(a_N)$ with $varphi$ being Euler's totient function.




My original analytic proof goes as follows:
If the number of solutions of $varphi(x)=N$ were bounded, the series
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{1}{varphi(n)log^2varphi(n)}$$
would be convergent by comparison with $sum_{ngeq n_0}frac{1}{n log^2 n}$ and condensation. It is enough to show that the last series is divergent. It is bounded below by a multiple of
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{sigma(n)}{n^2 log^2(n)}$$
and since
$$ sum_{ngeq 1}frac{sigma(n)}{n^{2+s}}=zeta(s+1)zeta(s+2)$$
for any $s>0$, it is enough to prove that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty}int_{0}^{+infty}zeta(1+t+s)zeta(2+t+s),ds,dt $$
is divergent, or that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty} u,zeta(1+u)zeta(2+u),du $$
is divergent. On the other hand this is trivial since $uzeta(1+u)zeta(2+u)geq u$ for any $u>0$.




Alternative combinatorial proof: we may consider a very large $N$ and the numbers in $[N,2N]$ with at least $logloglog N$ prime factors. They have a positive density in $[N,2N]$, and they are mapped by the totient function into an interval with length $Oleft(frac{N}{log log N}right)$. By the pigeonhole principle, at least $Omega(loglog N)$ elements of $[N,2N]$ share the same $varphi$.




I would be happier in having a combinatorial proof possibly not relying on subtle statements about the average order of $omega(n)$ or Mertens' theorem about $sum_{pleq x}frac{1}{p}$.






number-theory alternative-proof pigeonhole-principle arithmetic-functions dirichlet-series







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    @Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:51






  • 1




    Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:56








  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
    – Wojowu
    Jan 3 at 23:17






  • 1




    @Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 23:43






  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
    – Adam
    Jan 4 at 0:16
















8














I am trying to find an elementary proof of the following fact:




Given some $Ngeq 2$, there are $N$ distinct integers $a_1,ldots,a_N$ such that $varphi(a_1)=ldots=varphi(a_N)$ with $varphi$ being Euler's totient function.




My original analytic proof goes as follows:
If the number of solutions of $varphi(x)=N$ were bounded, the series
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{1}{varphi(n)log^2varphi(n)}$$
would be convergent by comparison with $sum_{ngeq n_0}frac{1}{n log^2 n}$ and condensation. It is enough to show that the last series is divergent. It is bounded below by a multiple of
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{sigma(n)}{n^2 log^2(n)}$$
and since
$$ sum_{ngeq 1}frac{sigma(n)}{n^{2+s}}=zeta(s+1)zeta(s+2)$$
for any $s>0$, it is enough to prove that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty}int_{0}^{+infty}zeta(1+t+s)zeta(2+t+s),ds,dt $$
is divergent, or that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty} u,zeta(1+u)zeta(2+u),du $$
is divergent. On the other hand this is trivial since $uzeta(1+u)zeta(2+u)geq u$ for any $u>0$.




Alternative combinatorial proof: we may consider a very large $N$ and the numbers in $[N,2N]$ with at least $logloglog N$ prime factors. They have a positive density in $[N,2N]$, and they are mapped by the totient function into an interval with length $Oleft(frac{N}{log log N}right)$. By the pigeonhole principle, at least $Omega(loglog N)$ elements of $[N,2N]$ share the same $varphi$.




I would be happier in having a combinatorial proof possibly not relying on subtle statements about the average order of $omega(n)$ or Mertens' theorem about $sum_{pleq x}frac{1}{p}$.






number-theory alternative-proof pigeonhole-principle arithmetic-functions dirichlet-series







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    @Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:51






  • 1




    Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:56








  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
    – Wojowu
    Jan 3 at 23:17






  • 1




    @Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 23:43






  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
    – Adam
    Jan 4 at 0:16














8












8








8


5





I am trying to find an elementary proof of the following fact:




Given some $Ngeq 2$, there are $N$ distinct integers $a_1,ldots,a_N$ such that $varphi(a_1)=ldots=varphi(a_N)$ with $varphi$ being Euler's totient function.




My original analytic proof goes as follows:
If the number of solutions of $varphi(x)=N$ were bounded, the series
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{1}{varphi(n)log^2varphi(n)}$$
would be convergent by comparison with $sum_{ngeq n_0}frac{1}{n log^2 n}$ and condensation. It is enough to show that the last series is divergent. It is bounded below by a multiple of
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{sigma(n)}{n^2 log^2(n)}$$
and since
$$ sum_{ngeq 1}frac{sigma(n)}{n^{2+s}}=zeta(s+1)zeta(s+2)$$
for any $s>0$, it is enough to prove that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty}int_{0}^{+infty}zeta(1+t+s)zeta(2+t+s),ds,dt $$
is divergent, or that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty} u,zeta(1+u)zeta(2+u),du $$
is divergent. On the other hand this is trivial since $uzeta(1+u)zeta(2+u)geq u$ for any $u>0$.




Alternative combinatorial proof: we may consider a very large $N$ and the numbers in $[N,2N]$ with at least $logloglog N$ prime factors. They have a positive density in $[N,2N]$, and they are mapped by the totient function into an interval with length $Oleft(frac{N}{log log N}right)$. By the pigeonhole principle, at least $Omega(loglog N)$ elements of $[N,2N]$ share the same $varphi$.




I would be happier in having a combinatorial proof possibly not relying on subtle statements about the average order of $omega(n)$ or Mertens' theorem about $sum_{pleq x}frac{1}{p}$.






number-theory alternative-proof pigeonhole-principle arithmetic-functions dirichlet-series







share|cite|improve this question













I am trying to find an elementary proof of the following fact:




Given some $Ngeq 2$, there are $N$ distinct integers $a_1,ldots,a_N$ such that $varphi(a_1)=ldots=varphi(a_N)$ with $varphi$ being Euler's totient function.




My original analytic proof goes as follows:
If the number of solutions of $varphi(x)=N$ were bounded, the series
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{1}{varphi(n)log^2varphi(n)}$$
would be convergent by comparison with $sum_{ngeq n_0}frac{1}{n log^2 n}$ and condensation. It is enough to show that the last series is divergent. It is bounded below by a multiple of
$$ sum_{ngeq 2019}frac{sigma(n)}{n^2 log^2(n)}$$
and since
$$ sum_{ngeq 1}frac{sigma(n)}{n^{2+s}}=zeta(s+1)zeta(s+2)$$
for any $s>0$, it is enough to prove that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty}int_{0}^{+infty}zeta(1+t+s)zeta(2+t+s),ds,dt $$
is divergent, or that the integral
$$ int_{0}^{+infty} u,zeta(1+u)zeta(2+u),du $$
is divergent. On the other hand this is trivial since $uzeta(1+u)zeta(2+u)geq u$ for any $u>0$.




Alternative combinatorial proof: we may consider a very large $N$ and the numbers in $[N,2N]$ with at least $logloglog N$ prime factors. They have a positive density in $[N,2N]$, and they are mapped by the totient function into an interval with length $Oleft(frac{N}{log log N}right)$. By the pigeonhole principle, at least $Omega(loglog N)$ elements of $[N,2N]$ share the same $varphi$.




I would be happier in having a combinatorial proof possibly not relying on subtle statements about the average order of $omega(n)$ or Mertens' theorem about $sum_{pleq x}frac{1}{p}$.






number-theory alternative-proof pigeonhole-principle arithmetic-functions dirichlet-series




number-theory alternative-proof pigeonhole-principle arithmetic-functions dirichlet-series






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 3 at 22:38









Jack D'Aurizio

287k33280658




287k33280658








  • 1




    @Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:51






  • 1




    Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:56








  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
    – Wojowu
    Jan 3 at 23:17






  • 1




    @Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 23:43






  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
    – Adam
    Jan 4 at 0:16














  • 1




    @Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:51






  • 1




    Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 22:56








  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
    – Wojowu
    Jan 3 at 23:17






  • 1




    @Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
    – Jack D'Aurizio
    Jan 3 at 23:43






  • 1




    @JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
    – Adam
    Jan 4 at 0:16








1




1




@Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 22:51




@Adam: what is the open problem you are talking about? I believe my analytic proof clearly shows/proves that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is not bounded.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 22:51




1




1




Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 22:56






Carmicheal's conjecture states a different thing, i.e. that every value in the range of $varphi$ is attained at least twice. I am just stating that there are values attained with arbitrary multiplicity.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 22:56






1




1




@JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
– Wojowu
Jan 3 at 23:17




@JackD'Aurizio Ford's theorem states that for any $k$, there is $n$ with $|varphi^{-1}(n)|=k$, while your question only asks about $geq k$. I haven't looked up the proof of Ford's theorem, but I expect your problem can be solved in a much simpler way (and might have been known historically earlier)
– Wojowu
Jan 3 at 23:17




1




1




@Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 23:43




@Wojowu: fine. Here it is another overkill: by Pillai's theorem, the set of values taken by the $varphi$ function has density zero. It follows that $|varphi^{-1}(n)|$ is clearly unbounded.
– Jack D'Aurizio
Jan 3 at 23:43




1




1




@JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
– Adam
Jan 4 at 0:16




@JackD'Aurizio typical that no one throws them a log too
– Adam
Jan 4 at 0:16










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Here it is an elementary argument inspired by Pillai$^{(*)}$: the point is that $nu_2(varphi(n))approxomega(n).$



Let $O^{omega}$ the set of odd natural numbers with at least $omega$ prime divisors and let $O^{omega}_n=O^{omega}cap[1,n]$.
$O^{omega}$ certainly has density $frac{1}{2}$ for any $omega$ - it is enough to invoke some elementary version of the PNT and basic sieving arguments. The totient function maps $O^{omega}_n$ into a subset of $[1,n]cap 2^{omega}mathbb{N}$, hence by the pigeonhole principle at least $(1-varepsilon_n)2^{omega-1}$ elements of $O^{omega}_n$ share the same $varphi$. Since $omega$ is arbitrary we have finished.



His surname is pure magic: Sivasankaranarayana.






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: "69"
    };
    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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061102%2fon-sup-varphi-1n-infty%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    Here it is an elementary argument inspired by Pillai$^{(*)}$: the point is that $nu_2(varphi(n))approxomega(n).$



    Let $O^{omega}$ the set of odd natural numbers with at least $omega$ prime divisors and let $O^{omega}_n=O^{omega}cap[1,n]$.
    $O^{omega}$ certainly has density $frac{1}{2}$ for any $omega$ - it is enough to invoke some elementary version of the PNT and basic sieving arguments. The totient function maps $O^{omega}_n$ into a subset of $[1,n]cap 2^{omega}mathbb{N}$, hence by the pigeonhole principle at least $(1-varepsilon_n)2^{omega-1}$ elements of $O^{omega}_n$ share the same $varphi$. Since $omega$ is arbitrary we have finished.



    His surname is pure magic: Sivasankaranarayana.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      2














      Here it is an elementary argument inspired by Pillai$^{(*)}$: the point is that $nu_2(varphi(n))approxomega(n).$



      Let $O^{omega}$ the set of odd natural numbers with at least $omega$ prime divisors and let $O^{omega}_n=O^{omega}cap[1,n]$.
      $O^{omega}$ certainly has density $frac{1}{2}$ for any $omega$ - it is enough to invoke some elementary version of the PNT and basic sieving arguments. The totient function maps $O^{omega}_n$ into a subset of $[1,n]cap 2^{omega}mathbb{N}$, hence by the pigeonhole principle at least $(1-varepsilon_n)2^{omega-1}$ elements of $O^{omega}_n$ share the same $varphi$. Since $omega$ is arbitrary we have finished.



      His surname is pure magic: Sivasankaranarayana.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        2












        2








        2






        Here it is an elementary argument inspired by Pillai$^{(*)}$: the point is that $nu_2(varphi(n))approxomega(n).$



        Let $O^{omega}$ the set of odd natural numbers with at least $omega$ prime divisors and let $O^{omega}_n=O^{omega}cap[1,n]$.
        $O^{omega}$ certainly has density $frac{1}{2}$ for any $omega$ - it is enough to invoke some elementary version of the PNT and basic sieving arguments. The totient function maps $O^{omega}_n$ into a subset of $[1,n]cap 2^{omega}mathbb{N}$, hence by the pigeonhole principle at least $(1-varepsilon_n)2^{omega-1}$ elements of $O^{omega}_n$ share the same $varphi$. Since $omega$ is arbitrary we have finished.



        His surname is pure magic: Sivasankaranarayana.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Here it is an elementary argument inspired by Pillai$^{(*)}$: the point is that $nu_2(varphi(n))approxomega(n).$



        Let $O^{omega}$ the set of odd natural numbers with at least $omega$ prime divisors and let $O^{omega}_n=O^{omega}cap[1,n]$.
        $O^{omega}$ certainly has density $frac{1}{2}$ for any $omega$ - it is enough to invoke some elementary version of the PNT and basic sieving arguments. The totient function maps $O^{omega}_n$ into a subset of $[1,n]cap 2^{omega}mathbb{N}$, hence by the pigeonhole principle at least $(1-varepsilon_n)2^{omega-1}$ elements of $O^{omega}_n$ share the same $varphi$. Since $omega$ is arbitrary we have finished.



        His surname is pure magic: Sivasankaranarayana.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 4 at 0:09









        Jack D'Aurizio

        287k33280658




        287k33280658






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061102%2fon-sup-varphi-1n-infty%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