Sweet \& sour and other flavours of ccc forcing notions (Q1882561): Difference between revisions

This paper has, according to the authors, a threefold purpose. First to build upon and consolidate the results and methods from earlier papers by \textit{H. Judah} and the authors [Fundam. Math. 144, 23--42 (1994; Zbl 0811.03037)] and by the authors [Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 671 (1999; Zbl 0940.03059) and J. Appl. Anal. 3, 103--127 (1997; Zbl 0889.03036)] in order to build a variety of Souslin ccc forcings. Examples include forcings that are nicely definable (Borel even), \(\sigma\)-\(n\)-linked for all~\(n\) -- as the Random algebra is -- but unlike the Random algebra as they may be taken to add a dominating real or a Cohen real. Second to further investigate how special Cohen and Random forcing are [see \textit{K. Kunen}, ``Random and Cohen reals'', in: Handbook of set-theoretic topology, 887--911 (1984; Zbl 0588.03035) for the original motivation]. Third to find properties that ensure that amalgamated products of ccc forcings are ccc; the general property is called sweetness and smacks of Axiom~A, but more for the purpose of strengthening the ccc rather than properness. The opposite of sweetness is sourness; this can be qualified in various ways, from simply some amalgamation not being ccc to explicit failure of sweetness. Some of the earlier examples are shown to be sweet. The authors claim to ``sacrifice generality for clarity''; a reader unfamiliar with the papers mentioned above will find the present work hard going: the first serious proof comes after about eight pages of definitions that still contain plenty of generality.