Question

To determine the order of distances run by Joseph, Colby, and Susie, we need to calculate the distances:

1. Joseph ran \( \sqrt{125} \) miles.
\[
\sqrt{125} = \sqrt{25 \times 5} = 5\sqrt{5} \approx 11.18 \text{ miles}
\]

2. Colby ran 13 miles.

3. Susie's distance is not explicitly given, but it can be inferred that she ran a distance less than or equal to 13 miles.

Now, comparing the distances:
- Joseph: \( \approx 11.18 \) miles
- Colby: \( 13 \) miles
- Susie: unspecified but assumed to be less than or equal to 13 miles (needs more context).

If Susie ran a direct path from the library to her house and typically distances for such paths could often be shorter than the other two mentioned distances, we can estimate that her distance is likely less than Colby's (13 miles). Therefore, depending on the specific distance she ran (it could be more than 11.18 but less than 13), we might conclude in either case.

However, without specific details on Susie's distance, the best logical ordering based on rough estimates involved could yield the following possible orders, but we typically presume:

1. Joseph (11.18 miles)
2. Susie (assumed less than 13 but potentially more than 11.18 depending on her distance)
3. Colby (13 miles)

Thus, the most reasonable ordering based on the provided answers would depend on specific assumptions about Susie's distance, but since she's often comparable or seen to be around distance similar to others and often less engaged in distance running could lead us for her to run similarly or lesser compared to others too specifically.

If we assume Joseph's and Susie's distances might be relatively close while Colby runs confirmed to the longest 13 miles, we'd conclude thus as:

**Joseph, Susie, Colby** is seemingly an order unless she is confirmed lesser too.

Yet, as per given answers, as we strictly have processed:
- "Joseph, Colby, Susie" suggests Colby has run in excess potentially invalidating.

To summarize as interpreted; the best possible derived order potentially would be **Joseph, Susie, Colby** needed clarification, yet no responses match exactly meaning relating on estimated distance in confusion as not directly stated, hence:

Answer picks missing might affirm depending other general aspect not notified and yields generally **Susie, Joseph, Colby** (if solely comparative) relying on distance perceived.

But since need strict validated and response here maybe untangling:
- if understood roughly and we presumed less than 13 by Susie, then orderly would yield her potentially downplayed below 11.18 too:

"Joseph, Susie, Colby" seems most structured below potential noted.