Joe is known for his fastball throughout the region. it's been said joe can throw a baseball so fast that, if you blink your eyes, you won't see it travel to the catcher's glove.

what would be the correct metric (si) units to use to record the average speed of joe's fastball?

a)cm/s

b)km/h

c)m/s

d)mph

The average speed of Joe's fastball correct SI unit is m/s.

C

Explanation

According to the problem given, the baseball thrown by Joe reaches the catcher's glove within the blink of audience's eyes.

Generally, human beings tend to blink their eyes every second to some minutes.

So as the ball reaches the catcher's glove within blink of eye that means the motion of the ball starting from thrown by Joe and ending at catcher's glove is completed within seconds. So the speed of the ball is in seconds.

As the catcher will be positioned at some meter distance so the distance traveled will be in meter in SI unit.

So the rate of change of distance per unit second is termed as velocity.

Thus the average speed will be recorded in m/s unit.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

we have been given a quadratic function and we need to restrict the domain such that it becomes a one to one function.

we know that vertex of this quadratic function occurs at (5,2).

further, we know that range of this function is .

if we restrict the domain of this function to either or , it will become one to one function.

let us know find its inverse.

upon interchanging x and y, we get:

let us now solve this function for y.

hence, the inverse function would be if we restrict the domain of original function to and the inverse function would be if we restrict the domain to .