The claim is made here that for $k$ a field
The left ideals of $M_n(k)$ are all of the form $$\{A \in M_n(k) \mid \operatorname{ker}A > S \}, \rlap{ \qquad \text{for some subspace $S$.}}$$
I was trying to think through that claim. I understand why all the left ideals of $M_n(k)$ are of the form $$\{A \in M_n(k) \mid \operatorname{Rowspace}(A) < S \}, \rlap{ \qquad \text{for some subspace $S$.}}$$
In the presence of an inner product, we have that $\operatorname{ker}A^T = \operatorname{Range}(A)^{\bot}$, and therefore we get the characterization we want. But what about if there isn't an inner product?
Does the same hold for $M_n(\Delta)$, where $\Delta$ is a division ring?
Using the theory of nondegenerate symmetric bilinear forms, it is possible to show that $\operatorname{ker}A^T = \operatorname{Range}(A)^{\bot}$ without the need for existence of an inner product (when we are discussing matrices over a field). The symbol $\bot$ would then represent an orthogonal complement with respect to the relevant nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form. Here is a copy from some work of mine showing that the row space of a matrix is the right orthogonal complement of the null space with respect to what I would regard as the most natural nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form:
The theory can be studied in detail on page 455-458 of this textbook, which is the source referenced above. As you can see $f(v,w)$ is nondegenerate due to the fact that a field has no divisors of zero.
For a division ring the symmetric property would fail in general, but I don't actually think this is absolutely necessary: You can see in the proof above I mention the right $f$-orthogonal complement, and the last part would still hold in the absence of commutativity.