2 added 148 characters in body

I've been looking for the following construction in the literature, but I've only been able to find (very) partial proofs or proofs of special cases.

Let $R$ be a non-commutative ring and $S$ a multiplicative subset (i.e., $1 \in S$ and if $a, b \in S$ then $ab \in S$, the set $S$ can in particular contain zero-divisors)zero-divisors).

It is known that the localization $RS^{-1}$ exists if :

1. for $a \in R$ and $s \in S$, there exist $b \in R$ and $t \in S$ such that $at = sb$,
2. if $sa = 0$ for $s \in S$ and $a \in R$, then there exists $t \in S$ such that $at = 0$.

This theorem

Many sources give the complete construction in the simpler case where the set $S$ only contains regular elements (i.e. non-zero divisors).

The general case is presented in (amongst others) : Rings of Quotients : An Introduction to Methods of Ring Theory by Bo StenstrĂ¶m (Prop. 1.4, Chap. II, p.51) or in Algebra, Volume 3 by P. M. Cohn (Thm. 1.3, Chap. 9, p. 350) but in both cases large parts of the proof are omitted.

Does anyone know where I can find the complete construction? In particular, the fact that the multiplication is well-defined (i.e., does not depend on the representing objects of the classes)?

1

# Noncommutative Localization of a Ring : Complete Construction

I've been looking for the following construction in the literature, but I've only been able to find (very) partial proofs or proofs of special cases.

Let $R$ be a non-commutative ring and $S$ a multiplicative subset (i.e., $1 \in S$ and if $a, b \in S$ then $ab \in S$, the set $S$ can in particular contain zero-divisors).

It is known that the localization $RS^{-1}$ exists if :

1. for $a \in R$ and $s \in S$, there exist $b \in R$ and $t \in S$ such that $at = sb$,
2. if $sa = 0$ for $s \in S$ and $a \in R$, then there exists $t \in S$ such that $at = 0$.

This theorem is presented in (amongst others) : Rings of Quotients : An Introduction to Methods of Ring Theory by Bo StenstrĂ¶m (Prop. 1.4, Chap. II, p.51) or in Algebra, Volume 3 by P. M. Cohn (Thm. 1.3, Chap. 9, p. 350) but in both cases large parts of the proof are omitted.

Does anyone know where I can find the complete construction? In particular, the fact that the multiplication is well-defined (i.e., does not depend on the representing objects of the classes)?