What does this set-theoretic notation mean in the proof of this theorem?












1














From A friendly introduction to mathematical logic,



In the first red box below, what does this notation mean?



And in the second red box, how exactly is this process repeated?





enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    From A friendly introduction to mathematical logic,



    In the first red box below, what does this notation mean?



    And in the second red box, how exactly is this process repeated?





    enter image description here










    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1







      From A friendly introduction to mathematical logic,



      In the first red box below, what does this notation mean?



      And in the second red box, how exactly is this process repeated?





      enter image description here










      share|cite|improve this question















      From A friendly introduction to mathematical logic,



      In the first red box below, what does this notation mean?



      And in the second red box, how exactly is this process repeated?





      enter image description here







      logic notation proof-explanation first-order-logic model-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Mauro ALLEGRANZA

      64.4k448112




      64.4k448112










      asked yesterday









      Oliver G

      1,6401529




      1,6401529






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2















          what does [the highlighted] notation mean?




          Note 1 : the set $B$ is the uncountable domain of the structure $mathfrak B$ and $A_0$ is a nonempty countable subset of $B$.



          The function $s: text {Vars} to A_0$ is the usual variable assignment function that maps variables of the language into objects of the domain of an interpretation: in this case $A_0$.



          We have : "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... choose an element $a_{alpha, s'}$ in $B$ [i.e. an object of the domain] such that..."



          Now take the set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_0}$ of all such elements and set : $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          Then consider "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... such that..." and build the new set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_1}$ and set $A_2 = A_1 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          And so on...



          At the end of the process, the union of all $A_i$'s will be the domain of the countable substructure needed for the theorem.






          how exactly is this process repeated?




          Note 2 : in the initial stock of functions we have $s : text {Vars} to A_0$. We use them to enlarge the initial set $A_0$ to a new set $A_1$ with more elements.



          Due to the fact that $A_1$ has new elements, in the succesive step the stock of functions $s : text {Vars} to A_1$ will be "larger", due to the fact we start with $A_0 ⊂ B$ but we "throw in" new elements of $B$ that not necessarily are in $A_0$.



          The tricky point is the reason for "iteration"...



          We have to recall the clauses defining the satisfaction relation $vDash$ : $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ means that there is a variable assignment function $s'$ that agree with $s$ on every free variable of the formula such that $mathfrak B vDash alpha [s'[x|a]]$, for some $a in B$.



          We start with $exists x alpha$ and $s : text {Vars} to A_0$ such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          But it may happen that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ does not hold because there is no suitable "$x$-variant" $s' : text {Vars} to A_0$.



          In the following steps, when we have enlarged $A_0$, this may change and a new $s$ pops-up such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          This is why at each step we have to review" every existential formulas.



          Note 3 : Why consider only existential formulas ?



          Because obviously every universal one that is true in the larger structure will holds also in every subset of the structure (if every ball in my box are black and I pick up at random five balls from it, for sure they will be black. It is not the same if in the box there is one white ball: I'm not certain that in the five chosen balls there is the white one.)



          The issue is that with the existential formula like $exists x alpha$, we have no certainty that the "witness" (if any) is included into $A_0$.



          The process described above amount "simply" to this : starting from the countable $A_0$, throw in countable new elements [because thera are countable many iterations] that are enough to satisfy all the existential formulas.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday










          • @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            yesterday












          • If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday












          • What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
            – Oliver G
            yesterday











          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%2f3060650%2fwhat-does-this-set-theoretic-notation-mean-in-the-proof-of-this-theorem%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















          what does [the highlighted] notation mean?




          Note 1 : the set $B$ is the uncountable domain of the structure $mathfrak B$ and $A_0$ is a nonempty countable subset of $B$.



          The function $s: text {Vars} to A_0$ is the usual variable assignment function that maps variables of the language into objects of the domain of an interpretation: in this case $A_0$.



          We have : "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... choose an element $a_{alpha, s'}$ in $B$ [i.e. an object of the domain] such that..."



          Now take the set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_0}$ of all such elements and set : $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          Then consider "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... such that..." and build the new set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_1}$ and set $A_2 = A_1 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          And so on...



          At the end of the process, the union of all $A_i$'s will be the domain of the countable substructure needed for the theorem.






          how exactly is this process repeated?




          Note 2 : in the initial stock of functions we have $s : text {Vars} to A_0$. We use them to enlarge the initial set $A_0$ to a new set $A_1$ with more elements.



          Due to the fact that $A_1$ has new elements, in the succesive step the stock of functions $s : text {Vars} to A_1$ will be "larger", due to the fact we start with $A_0 ⊂ B$ but we "throw in" new elements of $B$ that not necessarily are in $A_0$.



          The tricky point is the reason for "iteration"...



          We have to recall the clauses defining the satisfaction relation $vDash$ : $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ means that there is a variable assignment function $s'$ that agree with $s$ on every free variable of the formula such that $mathfrak B vDash alpha [s'[x|a]]$, for some $a in B$.



          We start with $exists x alpha$ and $s : text {Vars} to A_0$ such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          But it may happen that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ does not hold because there is no suitable "$x$-variant" $s' : text {Vars} to A_0$.



          In the following steps, when we have enlarged $A_0$, this may change and a new $s$ pops-up such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          This is why at each step we have to review" every existential formulas.



          Note 3 : Why consider only existential formulas ?



          Because obviously every universal one that is true in the larger structure will holds also in every subset of the structure (if every ball in my box are black and I pick up at random five balls from it, for sure they will be black. It is not the same if in the box there is one white ball: I'm not certain that in the five chosen balls there is the white one.)



          The issue is that with the existential formula like $exists x alpha$, we have no certainty that the "witness" (if any) is included into $A_0$.



          The process described above amount "simply" to this : starting from the countable $A_0$, throw in countable new elements [because thera are countable many iterations] that are enough to satisfy all the existential formulas.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday










          • @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            yesterday












          • If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday












          • What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
            – Oliver G
            yesterday
















          2















          what does [the highlighted] notation mean?




          Note 1 : the set $B$ is the uncountable domain of the structure $mathfrak B$ and $A_0$ is a nonempty countable subset of $B$.



          The function $s: text {Vars} to A_0$ is the usual variable assignment function that maps variables of the language into objects of the domain of an interpretation: in this case $A_0$.



          We have : "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... choose an element $a_{alpha, s'}$ in $B$ [i.e. an object of the domain] such that..."



          Now take the set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_0}$ of all such elements and set : $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          Then consider "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... such that..." and build the new set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_1}$ and set $A_2 = A_1 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          And so on...



          At the end of the process, the union of all $A_i$'s will be the domain of the countable substructure needed for the theorem.






          how exactly is this process repeated?




          Note 2 : in the initial stock of functions we have $s : text {Vars} to A_0$. We use them to enlarge the initial set $A_0$ to a new set $A_1$ with more elements.



          Due to the fact that $A_1$ has new elements, in the succesive step the stock of functions $s : text {Vars} to A_1$ will be "larger", due to the fact we start with $A_0 ⊂ B$ but we "throw in" new elements of $B$ that not necessarily are in $A_0$.



          The tricky point is the reason for "iteration"...



          We have to recall the clauses defining the satisfaction relation $vDash$ : $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ means that there is a variable assignment function $s'$ that agree with $s$ on every free variable of the formula such that $mathfrak B vDash alpha [s'[x|a]]$, for some $a in B$.



          We start with $exists x alpha$ and $s : text {Vars} to A_0$ such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          But it may happen that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ does not hold because there is no suitable "$x$-variant" $s' : text {Vars} to A_0$.



          In the following steps, when we have enlarged $A_0$, this may change and a new $s$ pops-up such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          This is why at each step we have to review" every existential formulas.



          Note 3 : Why consider only existential formulas ?



          Because obviously every universal one that is true in the larger structure will holds also in every subset of the structure (if every ball in my box are black and I pick up at random five balls from it, for sure they will be black. It is not the same if in the box there is one white ball: I'm not certain that in the five chosen balls there is the white one.)



          The issue is that with the existential formula like $exists x alpha$, we have no certainty that the "witness" (if any) is included into $A_0$.



          The process described above amount "simply" to this : starting from the countable $A_0$, throw in countable new elements [because thera are countable many iterations] that are enough to satisfy all the existential formulas.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday










          • @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            yesterday












          • If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday












          • What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
            – Oliver G
            yesterday














          2












          2








          2







          what does [the highlighted] notation mean?




          Note 1 : the set $B$ is the uncountable domain of the structure $mathfrak B$ and $A_0$ is a nonempty countable subset of $B$.



          The function $s: text {Vars} to A_0$ is the usual variable assignment function that maps variables of the language into objects of the domain of an interpretation: in this case $A_0$.



          We have : "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... choose an element $a_{alpha, s'}$ in $B$ [i.e. an object of the domain] such that..."



          Now take the set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_0}$ of all such elements and set : $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          Then consider "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... such that..." and build the new set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_1}$ and set $A_2 = A_1 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          And so on...



          At the end of the process, the union of all $A_i$'s will be the domain of the countable substructure needed for the theorem.






          how exactly is this process repeated?




          Note 2 : in the initial stock of functions we have $s : text {Vars} to A_0$. We use them to enlarge the initial set $A_0$ to a new set $A_1$ with more elements.



          Due to the fact that $A_1$ has new elements, in the succesive step the stock of functions $s : text {Vars} to A_1$ will be "larger", due to the fact we start with $A_0 ⊂ B$ but we "throw in" new elements of $B$ that not necessarily are in $A_0$.



          The tricky point is the reason for "iteration"...



          We have to recall the clauses defining the satisfaction relation $vDash$ : $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ means that there is a variable assignment function $s'$ that agree with $s$ on every free variable of the formula such that $mathfrak B vDash alpha [s'[x|a]]$, for some $a in B$.



          We start with $exists x alpha$ and $s : text {Vars} to A_0$ such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          But it may happen that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ does not hold because there is no suitable "$x$-variant" $s' : text {Vars} to A_0$.



          In the following steps, when we have enlarged $A_0$, this may change and a new $s$ pops-up such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          This is why at each step we have to review" every existential formulas.



          Note 3 : Why consider only existential formulas ?



          Because obviously every universal one that is true in the larger structure will holds also in every subset of the structure (if every ball in my box are black and I pick up at random five balls from it, for sure they will be black. It is not the same if in the box there is one white ball: I'm not certain that in the five chosen balls there is the white one.)



          The issue is that with the existential formula like $exists x alpha$, we have no certainty that the "witness" (if any) is included into $A_0$.



          The process described above amount "simply" to this : starting from the countable $A_0$, throw in countable new elements [because thera are countable many iterations] that are enough to satisfy all the existential formulas.






          share|cite|improve this answer















          what does [the highlighted] notation mean?




          Note 1 : the set $B$ is the uncountable domain of the structure $mathfrak B$ and $A_0$ is a nonempty countable subset of $B$.



          The function $s: text {Vars} to A_0$ is the usual variable assignment function that maps variables of the language into objects of the domain of an interpretation: in this case $A_0$.



          We have : "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... choose an element $a_{alpha, s'}$ in $B$ [i.e. an object of the domain] such that..."



          Now take the set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_0}$ of all such elements and set : $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          Then consider "for each formula $exists x alpha$ and functions $s$ and $s'$ ... such that..." and build the new set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }_{text {all } alpha, s': text{Vars} to A_1}$ and set $A_2 = A_1 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.



          And so on...



          At the end of the process, the union of all $A_i$'s will be the domain of the countable substructure needed for the theorem.






          how exactly is this process repeated?




          Note 2 : in the initial stock of functions we have $s : text {Vars} to A_0$. We use them to enlarge the initial set $A_0$ to a new set $A_1$ with more elements.



          Due to the fact that $A_1$ has new elements, in the succesive step the stock of functions $s : text {Vars} to A_1$ will be "larger", due to the fact we start with $A_0 ⊂ B$ but we "throw in" new elements of $B$ that not necessarily are in $A_0$.



          The tricky point is the reason for "iteration"...



          We have to recall the clauses defining the satisfaction relation $vDash$ : $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ means that there is a variable assignment function $s'$ that agree with $s$ on every free variable of the formula such that $mathfrak B vDash alpha [s'[x|a]]$, for some $a in B$.



          We start with $exists x alpha$ and $s : text {Vars} to A_0$ such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          But it may happen that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$ does not hold because there is no suitable "$x$-variant" $s' : text {Vars} to A_0$.



          In the following steps, when we have enlarged $A_0$, this may change and a new $s$ pops-up such that $mathfrak B vDash exists x alpha [s]$.



          This is why at each step we have to review" every existential formulas.



          Note 3 : Why consider only existential formulas ?



          Because obviously every universal one that is true in the larger structure will holds also in every subset of the structure (if every ball in my box are black and I pick up at random five balls from it, for sure they will be black. It is not the same if in the box there is one white ball: I'm not certain that in the five chosen balls there is the white one.)



          The issue is that with the existential formula like $exists x alpha$, we have no certainty that the "witness" (if any) is included into $A_0$.



          The process described above amount "simply" to this : starting from the countable $A_0$, throw in countable new elements [because thera are countable many iterations] that are enough to satisfy all the existential formulas.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Mauro ALLEGRANZA

          64.4k448112




          64.4k448112












          • By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday










          • @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            yesterday












          • If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday












          • What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
            – Oliver G
            yesterday


















          • By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday










          • @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
            – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
            yesterday












          • If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
            – Oliver G
            yesterday












          • What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
            – Oliver G
            yesterday
















          By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
          – Oliver G
          yesterday




          By "the set of all such elements", do you mean the set of all elements for the particular combination of $(exists x a, s, s')$? And the following $A_k$ are the set of all elements for the next combination?
          – Oliver G
          yesterday












          @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
          – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
          yesterday






          @OliverG - for each formula and each function $s$ ve have an object $a_{alpha, s'}$. Then, considering all possible pairs formula-function we have a set ${ a_{alpha, s'} }$ of objects. With it we form the new set $A_1 = A_0 cup { a_{alpha, s'} }$.
          – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
          yesterday














          If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
          – Oliver G
          yesterday






          If the set contains every $b$ for each combination $(exists x a, s, s')$, how is $A_2$ formed? What process is being repeated?
          – Oliver G
          yesterday














          What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
          – Oliver G
          yesterday




          What is the specific process of creating $A_1$? I don't understand what is being done in order to create it.
          – Oliver G
          yesterday


















          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%2f3060650%2fwhat-does-this-set-theoretic-notation-mean-in-the-proof-of-this-theorem%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

          1300-talet

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