$lim_{k to infty}v(E_k) = v(E)$












0












$begingroup$


$E_1,E_2, dots$ are measurable sets, $E subset E_i$ for all $i$ is also a measurable set and bounded.



In addition we are given that for all $k in mathbb N$ and for all $x in E_k$ there is a $y in E$ such that $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$



We are asked to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_k) = v(E)$, where $v$ stands for volume.



I understand the idea, $E_k$ gets closer and closer to $E$, until the maximum distance between $E_k$ and $E$ becomes infinitesimally small, but I don't know how to write a formal proof for this idea.



We are working with jordan measure here (as in, boundary is negligible)






calculus measure-theory volume







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:11












  • $begingroup$
    Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron
    Jan 18 at 22:30
















0












$begingroup$


$E_1,E_2, dots$ are measurable sets, $E subset E_i$ for all $i$ is also a measurable set and bounded.



In addition we are given that for all $k in mathbb N$ and for all $x in E_k$ there is a $y in E$ such that $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$



We are asked to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_k) = v(E)$, where $v$ stands for volume.



I understand the idea, $E_k$ gets closer and closer to $E$, until the maximum distance between $E_k$ and $E$ becomes infinitesimally small, but I don't know how to write a formal proof for this idea.



We are working with jordan measure here (as in, boundary is negligible)






calculus measure-theory volume







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:11












  • $begingroup$
    Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron
    Jan 18 at 22:30














0












0








0





$begingroup$


$E_1,E_2, dots$ are measurable sets, $E subset E_i$ for all $i$ is also a measurable set and bounded.



In addition we are given that for all $k in mathbb N$ and for all $x in E_k$ there is a $y in E$ such that $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$



We are asked to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_k) = v(E)$, where $v$ stands for volume.



I understand the idea, $E_k$ gets closer and closer to $E$, until the maximum distance between $E_k$ and $E$ becomes infinitesimally small, but I don't know how to write a formal proof for this idea.



We are working with jordan measure here (as in, boundary is negligible)






calculus measure-theory volume







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




$E_1,E_2, dots$ are measurable sets, $E subset E_i$ for all $i$ is also a measurable set and bounded.



In addition we are given that for all $k in mathbb N$ and for all $x in E_k$ there is a $y in E$ such that $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$



We are asked to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_k) = v(E)$, where $v$ stands for volume.



I understand the idea, $E_k$ gets closer and closer to $E$, until the maximum distance between $E_k$ and $E$ becomes infinitesimally small, but I don't know how to write a formal proof for this idea.



We are working with jordan measure here (as in, boundary is negligible)






calculus measure-theory volume




calculus measure-theory volume






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 18 at 22:31







Rick Joker

















asked Jan 18 at 21:56









Rick JokerRick Joker

285214




285214








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:11












  • $begingroup$
    Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron
    Jan 18 at 22:30














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:11












  • $begingroup$
    Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 18 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Joker
    Jan 18 at 22:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron
    Jan 18 at 22:30








1




1




$begingroup$
I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 18 at 22:11






$begingroup$
I guess you are missing some condition. Take for example $$ E_k=(-1-1/k; 1+1/k)$$ then both $[-1;1]$ and $ [-1;1]cap mathbb{Q}$ are valide candidates for $E$, but they do not have the same measure.
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 18 at 22:11














$begingroup$
Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 18 at 22:20






$begingroup$
Maybe you want $E$ to be open? Then you could squeeze $$nu(E)leq nu(E_k) leq nu(E^{(1/k)})$$ where $$E^{(1/k)}={ x : d(x, E)leq 1/k}$$
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 18 at 22:20














$begingroup$
Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
$endgroup$
– Rick Joker
Jan 18 at 22:21




$begingroup$
Nope, it's exactly as I wrote it. $E$ is not known to be anything but bounded and jordan measurable.
$endgroup$
– Rick Joker
Jan 18 at 22:21












$begingroup$
Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
$endgroup$
– Rick Joker
Jan 18 at 22:24






$begingroup$
Why must $E$ be open to use squeeze? and why is the volume of $E^{(1/k)}$ approach zero?
$endgroup$
– Rick Joker
Jan 18 at 22:24






1




1




$begingroup$
@RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
$endgroup$
– Aaron
Jan 18 at 22:30




$begingroup$
@RickJoker You should be aware that when people say "measurable" they tend to mean "Lebesgue measurable" or measurable in an abstract measure space. Jordan measure isn't a measure in the modern sense of the word, and so if you ask a question about Jordan measurable sets, you need to specify that (and not just say measurable).
$endgroup$
– Aaron
Jan 18 at 22:30










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

I believe I may have found a solution.



I will attempt to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_ksetminus E) = 0$ which is identical.



(*) Consider $x in E_k setminus E$. The closest point $y in E$ to it can't be an interior point, so infact $y in partial E$ and $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$.



Let $epsilon > 0$, and $k$ such that $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$.



Since $partial E$ is negligible, we can cover it by countably many boxes with sum of volumes less than epsilon. Cover $partial E$ by boxes with side length $frac{2}{k}$.



This is also a cover of $E_ksetminus E$ because of (*), and each box has volume $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$, so each box is negligible, and so we actually found a countable union of negligible boxes that cover $E_k setminus E$, so it's negligible, which means it has zero volume.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    Let $E^{(k)}$ denote ${x:|x-y| <frac 1 k text {for some}, y in E}$. Since the boundary of $E$ has measure $0$ it follows that $nu (E^{(k)}) to nu (E)$. [Indeed, $E^{(k)}$'s are decreasing and $cap_k E^{(k)}$ lies between $E$ and $overline {E}$]. Since $E_k subset E^{(k)}$ we get $nu (E_k) leq nu( E^{(k)})$ so $lim sup nu (E_k) leq nu(E)$. Since $E subset E^{(k)}$ for all $k$ we are done.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer








      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%2f3078801%2flim-k-to-inftyve-k-ve%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









      0












      $begingroup$

      I believe I may have found a solution.



      I will attempt to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_ksetminus E) = 0$ which is identical.



      (*) Consider $x in E_k setminus E$. The closest point $y in E$ to it can't be an interior point, so infact $y in partial E$ and $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$.



      Let $epsilon > 0$, and $k$ such that $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$.



      Since $partial E$ is negligible, we can cover it by countably many boxes with sum of volumes less than epsilon. Cover $partial E$ by boxes with side length $frac{2}{k}$.



      This is also a cover of $E_ksetminus E$ because of (*), and each box has volume $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$, so each box is negligible, and so we actually found a countable union of negligible boxes that cover $E_k setminus E$, so it's negligible, which means it has zero volume.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        0












        $begingroup$

        I believe I may have found a solution.



        I will attempt to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_ksetminus E) = 0$ which is identical.



        (*) Consider $x in E_k setminus E$. The closest point $y in E$ to it can't be an interior point, so infact $y in partial E$ and $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$.



        Let $epsilon > 0$, and $k$ such that $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$.



        Since $partial E$ is negligible, we can cover it by countably many boxes with sum of volumes less than epsilon. Cover $partial E$ by boxes with side length $frac{2}{k}$.



        This is also a cover of $E_ksetminus E$ because of (*), and each box has volume $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$, so each box is negligible, and so we actually found a countable union of negligible boxes that cover $E_k setminus E$, so it's negligible, which means it has zero volume.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          I believe I may have found a solution.



          I will attempt to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_ksetminus E) = 0$ which is identical.



          (*) Consider $x in E_k setminus E$. The closest point $y in E$ to it can't be an interior point, so infact $y in partial E$ and $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$.



          Let $epsilon > 0$, and $k$ such that $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$.



          Since $partial E$ is negligible, we can cover it by countably many boxes with sum of volumes less than epsilon. Cover $partial E$ by boxes with side length $frac{2}{k}$.



          This is also a cover of $E_ksetminus E$ because of (*), and each box has volume $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$, so each box is negligible, and so we actually found a countable union of negligible boxes that cover $E_k setminus E$, so it's negligible, which means it has zero volume.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I believe I may have found a solution.



          I will attempt to prove that $lim_{k to infty}v(E_ksetminus E) = 0$ which is identical.



          (*) Consider $x in E_k setminus E$. The closest point $y in E$ to it can't be an interior point, so infact $y in partial E$ and $|x-y| < frac{1}{k}$.



          Let $epsilon > 0$, and $k$ such that $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$.



          Since $partial E$ is negligible, we can cover it by countably many boxes with sum of volumes less than epsilon. Cover $partial E$ by boxes with side length $frac{2}{k}$.



          This is also a cover of $E_ksetminus E$ because of (*), and each box has volume $(frac{2}{k})^n < epsilon$, so each box is negligible, and so we actually found a countable union of negligible boxes that cover $E_k setminus E$, so it's negligible, which means it has zero volume.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 18 at 23:24









          Rick JokerRick Joker

          285214




          285214























              0












              $begingroup$

              Let $E^{(k)}$ denote ${x:|x-y| <frac 1 k text {for some}, y in E}$. Since the boundary of $E$ has measure $0$ it follows that $nu (E^{(k)}) to nu (E)$. [Indeed, $E^{(k)}$'s are decreasing and $cap_k E^{(k)}$ lies between $E$ and $overline {E}$]. Since $E_k subset E^{(k)}$ we get $nu (E_k) leq nu( E^{(k)})$ so $lim sup nu (E_k) leq nu(E)$. Since $E subset E^{(k)}$ for all $k$ we are done.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                Let $E^{(k)}$ denote ${x:|x-y| <frac 1 k text {for some}, y in E}$. Since the boundary of $E$ has measure $0$ it follows that $nu (E^{(k)}) to nu (E)$. [Indeed, $E^{(k)}$'s are decreasing and $cap_k E^{(k)}$ lies between $E$ and $overline {E}$]. Since $E_k subset E^{(k)}$ we get $nu (E_k) leq nu( E^{(k)})$ so $lim sup nu (E_k) leq nu(E)$. Since $E subset E^{(k)}$ for all $k$ we are done.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Let $E^{(k)}$ denote ${x:|x-y| <frac 1 k text {for some}, y in E}$. Since the boundary of $E$ has measure $0$ it follows that $nu (E^{(k)}) to nu (E)$. [Indeed, $E^{(k)}$'s are decreasing and $cap_k E^{(k)}$ lies between $E$ and $overline {E}$]. Since $E_k subset E^{(k)}$ we get $nu (E_k) leq nu( E^{(k)})$ so $lim sup nu (E_k) leq nu(E)$. Since $E subset E^{(k)}$ for all $k$ we are done.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Let $E^{(k)}$ denote ${x:|x-y| <frac 1 k text {for some}, y in E}$. Since the boundary of $E$ has measure $0$ it follows that $nu (E^{(k)}) to nu (E)$. [Indeed, $E^{(k)}$'s are decreasing and $cap_k E^{(k)}$ lies between $E$ and $overline {E}$]. Since $E_k subset E^{(k)}$ we get $nu (E_k) leq nu( E^{(k)})$ so $lim sup nu (E_k) leq nu(E)$. Since $E subset E^{(k)}$ for all $k$ we are done.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 18 at 23:28









                  Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

                  76.4k53370




                  76.4k53370






























                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3078801%2flim-k-to-inftyve-k-ve%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