Can the Command spell force someone to answer a question in a Zone of Truth?

If you have an enemy in a Zone of Truth who failed their save, they can still choose to not answer. If a player casts Command on them with the word being "answer" would that force the creature to answer the question posed? Similarly, what if you cast the command "lie" on a creature in a Zone of Truth?

Is the caster of Zone of Truth aware of the save result?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/z/zone-of-truth/

If I cast this spell, will I be able to tell whether the target saved or not?

The spell level and therefore the DC will be too low so my intention it to use it for negotiations where the target and myself both decide to fail it to make the negotiations more reliable.

In case I can’t be aware of the result (which makes the spell completely useless since everyone can save it), is there some other spell that can be used to reliably prevent lies?

Sets in Mathematics are immutable but in Computer Science sets are mutable and called “Dynamic Sets” – truth of the statement

While reading the classic text Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen et. al. I came across the following claim:

Sets are as fundamental to computer science as they are to mathematics. Whereas mathematical sets are unchanging, the sets manipulated by algorithms can grow, shrink, or otherwise change over time. We call such sets dynamic.

I felt a bit odd after reading the statement that "set" in Mathematics and in CS are different from the mutable point of view. Now in Mathematics what we deal with are theoretical aspect of things and as such "set" is a theoretical concept and so it is in Theoretical CS. If it is immutable in mathematics then so it is in CS. Mathematics and Theoretical CS are interlinked. So given a graph algorithm which say finds the minimum shortest path between a pair of vertices , we can’t say whether it belongs to Mathematics or CS.

Often in algorithms we write statements as :

$ $ S = S \cup \{a\} \quad \text{view $ 1$ }$ $

Which seems to sort of change our set $ S$ , but if we look it in this way:

$ $ S’= S \cup \{a\} \quad \text{view $ 2$ }$ $

$ $ S=S’$ $

So in the second situation we are not modifying our actual set $ S$ we are forming a new set $ S’$ with $ S$ augmented with $ a$ and then after that we are making the variable $ S$ refer to $ S’$ .

What I feel is that the concept of the set being mutable or immutable is solely dependent on the data-structure of representation of the abstract concept of "sets" and since in data-structure the two steps in view $ 2$ are combined and implemented, so they are called dynamic sets.

In short I feel that Dynamic Sets are data-structure implementation of sets and not the abstract sets.

Use a Cell Phone Number Listing to Get the Truth Behind Your Spouse’s Strange Calls

Google will inform you that many people are currently the usage of the online reverse cellular phone appearance up directory today and  Phone Number List . There can be several reasons for utilizing the carrier among the ones the maximum common are finding out whom a prank caller is or if a spouse is cheating. Reasons range from all of us, but either manner what their motive, the manner they get entry to the online opposite cell cellphone research is the same manner.

[Image: Bahamas-Phone-List.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1]

An on line reverse cellular Bahamas phone number list  lookup provider is said to be the very nice manner due to its comfort and in cost as compared to the numerous other methods that could price you a fortune and are difficult to apply.

Among services provided to, you that provide the same facts’s as a opposite cell smartphone look up are as follows:

Detective – They will follow your accomplice and supply the desired facts however are you able to truly have the funds for what they’re going to charge for this? In addition, possibilities are your spouse will discover.

Reading the frame language of your partner- if you may do this you possibly might not have married them to start with.

Therefore, with the available options the handiest one that makes experience is the opposite cell telephone online lookup. Just honestly pay for a one-time search. Input the suspect number click on on seek now and within a few seconds, you may recognise who is at the other give up of that mysterious telephone call. You can ease your thoughts and both confront your partner or let dozing puppies lie.

Can caster prove truthfulness with “Zone of Truth”

I’ve seen a lot of posts about how “Zone of Truth” might be defeated by the target. But my character has the opposite problem: he’s extremely truthful but people don’t always believe him. Is there any mechanism for using Zone of Truth to make verifiably True statements?

If I cast ZoT, I know (to first order) who in the zone succeeds or fails. I would also have to make a save, which I could fail voluntarily. Is there any way I could reliably convince my interlocutors that I did indeed fail (note: this isn’t “convince them I’m telling the truth when I’m lying” but “convince them I’m telling the truth when I am.”

One of the great powers of the Aes Sedai First Oath was that if an Aes Sedai made a statement without evasion, then all knew it to be true and reliable. And if the Aes Sedai said “I am not trying to mislead you, you understand my point correctly” it was more powerful. Zone of Truth has precisely the opposite power.

Since the caster of the Zone of Truth of spell knows whether a creature failed the save, can they use it to detect hidden/invisible creatures?

I’m DMing for a 5e party that includes a cleric, as many parties do. This cleric has found (what appears to be) an interpretation of the wording of the “Zone of Truth” spell that makes it even more powerful than it seems to be intended to be.

His idea is that since Zone of Truth tells you when a creature succeeds or fails the save, he could use it to detect if a hidden or invisible person enters the radius, as it would tell him that someone succeeded or failed the save.

Is this true? if not, is there any official example that specifically says it’s not true?

(And, if Zone of Truth WOULD do this, is there any way to prevent such a detection, as I know the party will do this a ton, and if it’s something they can do, I don’t want to deny it outright, but some villains may have countermeasures)

Can a question be mentally overwritten in Zone of Truth?

Zone of truth’s spell description includes (emphasis mine):

An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth.

However, this seems like it might make the spell able to be circumvented in seemingly ridiculous ways. For example, suppose there is an interrogator (referred to as person A) and the person they are interrogating (referred to as person B). B has failed the saving throw against the spell.

Suppose the following interaction occurs:

A: What is your name?
B: (Mentally, to himself) I now name my sword Charles. What is the name of my sword?
B: Charles.

A: Did you conspire to kill the king?
B: (Mentally, to himself) Is 2 plus 2 equal to 1?
B: No.

A: Where is the rest of your party at?
B: (Mentally, to himself) Where is the rest of my party not at?
B: To the East.

A: Repeat after me: I am innocent of all crimes I stand accused of.
B: (Mentally, to himself) What is an example of a lie?
B: I am innocent of all crimes I stand accused of.

It would appear, if this is allowed, that it nullifies the purpose of the spell itself without any of the mental gymnastics that would normally go into evasive answers. There also seem to be relatively few checks to prevent this behavior, short of a Detect Thoughts spell being cast simultaneously. Is this allowed?