You are here
Homeclassical ring of quotients
Primary tabs
classical ring of quotients
Let $R$ be a ring. An element of $R$ is called regular if it is not a right zero divisor or a left zero divisor in $R$.
A ring $Q\supset R$ is a left classical ring of quotients for $R$ (resp. right classical ring of quotients for $R$) if it satisifies:

every regular element of $R$ is invertible in $Q$

every element of $Q$ can be written in the form $x^{{1}}y$ (resp. $yx^{{1}}$) with $x,y\in R$ and $x$ regular.
If a ring $R$ has a left or right classical ring of quotients, then it is unique up to isomorphism.
If $R$ is a commutative integral domain, then the left and right classical rings of quotients always exist – they are the field of fractions of $R$.
For noncommutative rings, necessary and sufficient conditions are given by Ore’s Theorem.
Note that the goal here is to construct a ring which is not too different from $R$, but in which more elements are invertible. The first condition says which elements we want to be invertible. The second condition says that $Q$ should contain just enough extra elements to make the regular elements invertible.
Such rings are called classical rings of quotients, because there are other rings of quotients. These all attempt to enlarge $R$ somehow to make more elements invertible (or sometimes to make ideals invertible).
Finally, note that a ring of quotients is not the same as a quotient ring.
Mathematics Subject Classification
16U20 no label found16S90 no label found Forums
 Planetary Bugs
 HS/Secondary
 University/Tertiary
 Graduate/Advanced
 Industry/Practice
 Research Topics
 LaTeX help
 Math Comptetitions
 Math History
 Math Humor
 PlanetMath Comments
 PlanetMath System Updates and News
 PlanetMath help
 PlanetMath.ORG
 Strategic Communications Development
 The Math Pub
 Testing messages (ignore)
 Other useful stuff
Recent Activity
new question: Prime numbers out of sequence by Rubens373
Oct 7
new question: Lorenz system by David Bankom
Oct 19
new correction: examples and OEIS sequences by fizzie
Oct 13
new correction: Define Galois correspondence by porton
Oct 7
new correction: Closure properties on languages: DCFL not closed under reversal by babou
new correction: DCFLs are not closed under reversal by petey
Oct 2
new correction: Many corrections by Smarandache
Sep 28
new question: how to contest an entry? by zorba
new question: simple question by parag