Regarding reals as functions from $\omega$ to $\omega$, let's say a real $f$ *eventually dominates* $g$ iff $(\exists n)(\forall m > n)[ f(m) > g(m)]$. Let's say that a (non-trivial separative) forcing poset $P$ *doesn't always add a dominating real* iff there is a generic extension by $P$ which doesn't contains a real that eventually dominates every real from the ground model. Let's say that $P$ *never adds a dominating real* iff every generic extension by $P$ doesn't contain any real that eventually dominates all the ground model's reals. I'm interested in combinatorial/order-theoretic conditions which may be necessary or sufficient for either of these notions.


* **$\omega$-closure** implies you add no reals, hence you add no dominating reals; Cohen forcing is not $\omega$-closed but it never adds a dominating real
* one can show that **separability** implies you never add a dominating real (by separability, I mean containing a countable dense subset); the Cohen forcing that adds uncountably many reals isn't separable but never adds a dominating real
* Hechler forcing **has size at most continuum** but always adds a dominating real; the Cohen forcing that adds more than continuum many reals (where "continuum" is "continuum as computed in the ground model" obviously) has size greater than continuum but never adds a dominating real
* Hechler forcing also has the **countable chain condition** yet adds a dominating real; the forcing that adds a function $\omega \_1 \to \omega \_1$ with countable partial functions doesn't have the ccc but it's $\omega$-closed hence adds no new reals and thus never adds any dominating reals.


My question: 


**What are some combinatorial/order-theoretic conditions on a poset that are necessary and/or sufficient for the poset to never/not always add a dominating real?**



Characterizing forcings that don't add any dominating reals
Stefan's answer pointed me in the right direction, and then talking it over with prof. Leo Harrington we've got an answer:


A complete Boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$ never adds a dominating real iff for any collection $\{ u \_{m,k} : m, k \in \omega \} \subset \mathbb{B}^+$ the following weaker form of weak $(\omega ,\omega )$-distributivity holds: 



> 
> $\prod \_{m \in \omega} \sum \_{k \in \omega} u \_{m,k} = \sum \_{f \in \omega ^{\omega}} \prod \_{n \in \omega} \sum \_{n < m < \omega} \sum \_{k < f(m)} u \_{m,k}$
> 
> 
> 


For the reverse implication, suppose "weak weak $(\omega ,\omega )$-distributivity" holds, and for contradiction let $u \neq 0$ be the Boolean value of the sentence "there exists a dominating real," and let $\dot{g}$ be a name witnessing this, i.e. the sentence "$\dot{g}$ is a dominating real" has Boolean value $u$. Define $u \_{m,k} = || \dot{g} (m) = k ||$. Now if $G$ is any $\mathbb{B}$-generic filter containing $u$, noting that the left side of the distributivity identity is (at least) $u$, we know that the right side belongs to $G$. It's then not hard to see that:



> 
> $(\exists f \in (\omega ^{\omega})^V )(\forall n \in \omega )(\exists m > n)(\exists k < f(m))(u \_{m,k} \in G)$
> 
> 
> 


which is to say that there's a real $f$ in the ground model such that:



> 
> $(\forall n)(\exists m > n)(\dot{g}^G (m) < f(m))$
> 
> 
> 


so $f$ is not dominated by $\dot{g}$, contradiction. 


For the forward implication, it should suffice to show it in the case where for each $m$, the set $\{ u \_{m,k} : k \in \omega \}$ is an antichain with least upper bound $u$ independent of $m$ (I haven't checked this detail personally). So let $\{ u \_{m,k}\}$ be such a collection for which the identity fails. Consider the name:



> 
> $\dot{g} = \{ (u \_{m,k}, (m,k)) : m, k \in \omega \}$
> 
> 
> 


It's not hard to see that the right side of the identity is at most $u$, so assuming the identity fails it's strictly less than $u$, so since $\mathbb{B}$ is separative there's a generic $G$ containing $u$ avoiding the right side of the identity. It's not hard to see from here that $\dot{g}^G$ will dominate all the ground model's reals.




---


I should add that if we think of $u \_{m,n}$ as saying "$\dot{g}(m) = n$" and replace the Boolean operations with the corresponding quantifiers, then the left side says "$\dot{g}$ is a real," and the right side says "$\dot{g}$ doesn't dominate every real in the ground model." This suggests how we can characterize forcings that don't add any unbounded reals, for example, namely the following identity holds:



> 
> $\prod \_{m \in \omega} \sum \_{k \in \omega} u \_{m,k} = \sum \_{f \in \omega ^{\omega}} \prod \_{m \in \omega} \sum \_{k < f(m)} u \_{m,k}$
> 
> 
> 


Forcings that don't add any reals are precisely those that satisfy the following identity:



> 
> $\prod \_{m \in \omega} \sum \_{k \in \omega} u \_{m,k} = \sum \_{f \in \omega ^{\omega}} \prod \_{m \in \omega} u \_{m,f(m)}$
> 
> 
> 


You can easily generalize this to talking about functions $\kappa \to \lambda$; the above two results so generalized are precisely Theorem 15.38 and Lemma 15.39 in Jech, "Set Theory".


