Question about Hatcher’s proof of equivalence of simplicial and singular homology for $\Delta$-complexes.

algebraic-topologyhomology-cohomologysimplicial-complex

In Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, the following argument appears (note that this is only part of the theorem). I see why the diagram commutes (with respect to to homomorphism induced by the "inclusion" of the $n$-simplicies into the singular $n$-simplicies). That $H_n^\Delta(X^k, X^{k-1})$ is isomorphic to $H_n(X^k, X^{k-1})$ by the given argument also makes perfect sense. However, I seem to miss something in their connection: The conclusion that the particular map (as induced by the canonical homomorphism) is indeed an isomorphism seems wrong. Simply because the two groups are isomorphic does not make that map (which is surjective) an isomorphism, and if I replaced the map by the isomorphism, commutativity (which is needed to apply the five lemma) is not guaranteed, I believe.

Why does it follow that the arrow from $H_n^\Delta(X^k, X^{k-1})$ to $H_n(X^k, X^{k-1})$ is an isomorphism from the argument? It seems that similar "shortcut" is used elsewhere in the book, is it a general applicable technique to conclude that a map in such a diagram is an isomorphism through showing that there exists an isomorphism between the respective objects?

enter image description here

Best Answer

For $n \ne k$ both of $H^\Delta_n(X^k,X^{k-1})$ and $H_n(X^k,X^{k-1})$ are trivial groups, and any homomorphism from one trivial group to another is an isomorphism.

For $n = k$, both of $H^\Delta_n(X^k,X^{k-1})$ and $H_n(X^k,X^{k-1})$ are free abelian groups, with specific bases for each. Also, the homomorphism $H^\Delta_n(X^k,X^{k-1}) \mapsto H_n(X^k,X^{k-1})$ takes the basis of the first bijectively to the basis of the second. Any homomorphism from one free abelian group to another, that takes a basis of the first to a basis of the second bijectively, is an isomorphism.