WHY IS IT NOT REASONABLE TO SAY THAT 4.23 IS LESS THAN 4.13.?
Because it's not true. 4.23 is more than 4.13.
Explain why it is not reasonable to say that 4.23 is less than 4.13.?
well 4.23 is greater than 4.13 think of the decimals as whole numbers 23 and 13. which is a bigger number? 23, or 13? 23 would be bigger, same with decimals.
Explain why it is not reasonable to say that 4.23 is less than 4.13?
because 4.23 is more :S
Explain why it is not reasonable to say that 2.16 is less than 2.06?
because that's just silly... seriously, .1 is greater than .0 so it stands to reason that .16 is greater than .06
What is the better way to say "a reasonable reason"?
Thanks for A2A.“A reasonable reason”, although sounding awkward, is valid English. For both words, the core element “reason” does not mean the exact same thing.I can understand why someone would want to avoid this combination in favor of something that sounds better. I would suggest some simple synonyms as replacements:1. An acceptable reason;2. A satisfactory reason;3. A reasonable explanation;4. A reasonable excuse.Obviously, exploring a thesaurus may help find better substitutes for either or both words that approximate your intended meaning more accurately than some that I’ve just pulled out of thin air.
Is it reasonable to say that when a conservative deflects an issue to Obama, then you've won that debate?
Yes. If a person can’t defend the actions of the person, without bringing up another person, you have won the argument.
Is it reasonable to say mathematics is a language? Why, or why not?
I think this is common view among scientists and some (possibly most) mathematicians. However, at least some of this question is relevant to debates about the nature of mathematics that arose during the turn of the 20th Century. Positions in philosophy of mathematics typically fall under two camps: realist and anti-realist positions. Realist positions declare that the objects mathematicians study are `real` in some sense. This could be empirically real as the empiricists claim, or real in the sense of some Platonic realm of form, as the Platonists claim. Anti-realists reject this view. There are three anti-realist positions that were particularly popular at the turn of the century, formalism, intuitionism, and logicism. Formalists believed mathematics to be the study of formal axiomatic systems. Intuitionists believe mathematics to be the study of mental constructions that are about the particular form in which reality is presented to humans. Logicists believed mathematics was a way of studying logic, that is, mathematics is reducible to logic (I should note that logicists are not necessarily anti-real, since it merely moves the goalposts of this question from mathematics to logic). It seems to me, that all these positions conceive of mathematics as a language, but if you like to claim mathematics is only or merely a language, then you likely have to be formalist or logicist.