How to show that $phi vdash psi$ implies $phi^{mathbf{M}} vdash psi^{mathbf{M}}$












0














Given a class $mathbf{M} neq emptyset$ and a formula $phi$ from the language of set theory, let $phi^{mathbf{M}}$ denote the relativizatization of $phi$ to $mathbf{M}$. I want to show the if $phi vdash psi$, then $phi^{mathbf{M}} vdash psi^{mathbf{M}}$. I tried proving that if $vdash phi$, then $vdash phi^{mathbf{M}}$, but I'm getting stucked in the induction steps - and one of the induction steps seems to be exactly what I want to prove. Anyone can shed some light?






logic set-theory







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 26 at 8:26
















0














Given a class $mathbf{M} neq emptyset$ and a formula $phi$ from the language of set theory, let $phi^{mathbf{M}}$ denote the relativizatization of $phi$ to $mathbf{M}$. I want to show the if $phi vdash psi$, then $phi^{mathbf{M}} vdash psi^{mathbf{M}}$. I tried proving that if $vdash phi$, then $vdash phi^{mathbf{M}}$, but I'm getting stucked in the induction steps - and one of the induction steps seems to be exactly what I want to prove. Anyone can shed some light?






logic set-theory







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 26 at 8:26














0












0








0







Given a class $mathbf{M} neq emptyset$ and a formula $phi$ from the language of set theory, let $phi^{mathbf{M}}$ denote the relativizatization of $phi$ to $mathbf{M}$. I want to show the if $phi vdash psi$, then $phi^{mathbf{M}} vdash psi^{mathbf{M}}$. I tried proving that if $vdash phi$, then $vdash phi^{mathbf{M}}$, but I'm getting stucked in the induction steps - and one of the induction steps seems to be exactly what I want to prove. Anyone can shed some light?






logic set-theory







share|cite|improve this question













Given a class $mathbf{M} neq emptyset$ and a formula $phi$ from the language of set theory, let $phi^{mathbf{M}}$ denote the relativizatization of $phi$ to $mathbf{M}$. I want to show the if $phi vdash psi$, then $phi^{mathbf{M}} vdash psi^{mathbf{M}}$. I tried proving that if $vdash phi$, then $vdash phi^{mathbf{M}}$, but I'm getting stucked in the induction steps - and one of the induction steps seems to be exactly what I want to prove. Anyone can shed some light?






logic set-theory




logic set-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 26 at 6:32









Nuntractatuses Amável

61812




61812








  • 3




    Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 26 at 8:26














  • 3




    Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Dec 26 at 8:26








3




3




Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 26 at 8:26




Show that your inference rules relativize, and then mechanically relativize the proof.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 26 at 8:26










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














For any structure $A$ in the language of set theory, the class $mathbf{M}$ can be interpreted as a subset $mathbf{M}^A$ of $A$, which we view as a substructure of $A$ by restricting $in$ to $mathbf{M}^A$.



Then given a formula $varphi$, the defining property of the formula $varphi^mathbf{M}$ is that for any structure $A$, we have $Amodels varphi^mathbf{M}$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$.



Now suppose $varphivdash psi$. By soundness and completeness, we have $varphimodels psi$, and it suffices to show $varphi^mathbf{M}models psi^mathbf{M}$. So let $A$ be any model of $varphi^mathbf{M}$. Then $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$. Since $varphimodels psi$, we have $mathbf{M}^Amodels psi$, so $Amodels psi^mathbf{M}$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 6:47










  • I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 8:07








  • 2




    Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:50








  • 2




    If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:52










  • I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    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%2f3052696%2fhow-to-show-that-phi-vdash-psi-implies-phi-mathbfm-vdash-psi-mat%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














For any structure $A$ in the language of set theory, the class $mathbf{M}$ can be interpreted as a subset $mathbf{M}^A$ of $A$, which we view as a substructure of $A$ by restricting $in$ to $mathbf{M}^A$.



Then given a formula $varphi$, the defining property of the formula $varphi^mathbf{M}$ is that for any structure $A$, we have $Amodels varphi^mathbf{M}$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$.



Now suppose $varphivdash psi$. By soundness and completeness, we have $varphimodels psi$, and it suffices to show $varphi^mathbf{M}models psi^mathbf{M}$. So let $A$ be any model of $varphi^mathbf{M}$. Then $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$. Since $varphimodels psi$, we have $mathbf{M}^Amodels psi$, so $Amodels psi^mathbf{M}$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 6:47










  • I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 8:07








  • 2




    Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:50








  • 2




    If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:52










  • I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    yesterday
















2














For any structure $A$ in the language of set theory, the class $mathbf{M}$ can be interpreted as a subset $mathbf{M}^A$ of $A$, which we view as a substructure of $A$ by restricting $in$ to $mathbf{M}^A$.



Then given a formula $varphi$, the defining property of the formula $varphi^mathbf{M}$ is that for any structure $A$, we have $Amodels varphi^mathbf{M}$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$.



Now suppose $varphivdash psi$. By soundness and completeness, we have $varphimodels psi$, and it suffices to show $varphi^mathbf{M}models psi^mathbf{M}$. So let $A$ be any model of $varphi^mathbf{M}$. Then $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$. Since $varphimodels psi$, we have $mathbf{M}^Amodels psi$, so $Amodels psi^mathbf{M}$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 6:47










  • I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 8:07








  • 2




    Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:50








  • 2




    If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:52










  • I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    yesterday














2












2








2






For any structure $A$ in the language of set theory, the class $mathbf{M}$ can be interpreted as a subset $mathbf{M}^A$ of $A$, which we view as a substructure of $A$ by restricting $in$ to $mathbf{M}^A$.



Then given a formula $varphi$, the defining property of the formula $varphi^mathbf{M}$ is that for any structure $A$, we have $Amodels varphi^mathbf{M}$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$.



Now suppose $varphivdash psi$. By soundness and completeness, we have $varphimodels psi$, and it suffices to show $varphi^mathbf{M}models psi^mathbf{M}$. So let $A$ be any model of $varphi^mathbf{M}$. Then $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$. Since $varphimodels psi$, we have $mathbf{M}^Amodels psi$, so $Amodels psi^mathbf{M}$.






share|cite|improve this answer












For any structure $A$ in the language of set theory, the class $mathbf{M}$ can be interpreted as a subset $mathbf{M}^A$ of $A$, which we view as a substructure of $A$ by restricting $in$ to $mathbf{M}^A$.



Then given a formula $varphi$, the defining property of the formula $varphi^mathbf{M}$ is that for any structure $A$, we have $Amodels varphi^mathbf{M}$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$.



Now suppose $varphivdash psi$. By soundness and completeness, we have $varphimodels psi$, and it suffices to show $varphi^mathbf{M}models psi^mathbf{M}$. So let $A$ be any model of $varphi^mathbf{M}$. Then $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi$. Since $varphimodels psi$, we have $mathbf{M}^Amodels psi$, so $Amodels psi^mathbf{M}$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 26 at 6:43









Alex Kruckman

26.4k22555




26.4k22555












  • nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 6:47










  • I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 8:07








  • 2




    Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:50








  • 2




    If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:52










  • I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    yesterday


















  • nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 6:47










  • I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    Dec 26 at 8:07








  • 2




    Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:50








  • 2




    If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
    – Alex Kruckman
    Dec 26 at 15:52










  • I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
    – Nuntractatuses Amável
    yesterday
















nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
Dec 26 at 6:47




nice. I was trying to do it without using $vDash$ - only the formal deductions. I would prefer to do it in this way, but it is just personal preference.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
Dec 26 at 6:47












I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
Dec 26 at 8:07






I tried proving the defining property you mentioned, and I encountered some dificulties. Mainly, the point that if $phi$ is the sentence $exists x psi$, then $psi$ is not necessarily a sentence - in which case I am not sure what the defining property means. I then tried proving for arbitrary formulas, with an assignment of values for the variables: then it struck me that, for this to make any sense, the variables can only assume values in $mathbf{M}^A$. Is this the case? I've seen relativization only in the context of set theory - in Kunen's book. I'm slightly confused.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
Dec 26 at 8:07






2




2




Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 26 at 15:50






Yes, to prove the "defining property", you need to do an induction over formulas. Here the statement you want to prove by induction is: For any formula $varphi(x)$, any structure $A$, and any tuple $ain (mathbf{M}^A)^x$, we have $Amodels varphi^{mathbf{M}}(a)$ if and only if $mathbf{M}^Amodels varphi(a)$. This restricts to the property I wrote above when $varphi$ is a sentence.
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 26 at 15:50






2




2




If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 26 at 15:52




If you prefer a purely syntactic proof, you can follow Asaf's hint above.
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 26 at 15:52












I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
yesterday




I managed to prove it (the "defining property"), thank you :). I'll try to do it in a purely syntactical way, now.
– Nuntractatuses Amável
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%2f3052696%2fhow-to-show-that-phi-vdash-psi-implies-phi-mathbfm-vdash-psi-mat%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

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
Read more

張江高科駅

Image
張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2
Read more