Stuff I Like To Use On You When Impressing With Math

I found out that alot of stuff I learned I didn't need to know (e.g., "How does this help me have sex again?" a woman loves adding it all up inside her self and as doubleplusgood as if you know all of this).
Anyway, back to logic - I learned and you learn too, Swervedriver.
This isn't necessarily your God speaking it. I query to the higher not - it's all here with us (a college).
Higher ups may approve, but seek you not.
God's language is universal - a stink, a pledge to say not.
I too speak that often enough.

Here:

What is a fraction? A piece of shit.
That is division waiting patiently for another just as dumb I do it all down by simply dividing.
Only a percent is normal. You have the formula, now get the facts.
A percent seems to be normal.
What is a percent?
Something you can understand.
With one hundred equal slices of horfs, you got some or all.
Zero percent?
That means all too as in all wrong.
Leave fractions to pies and the stock market.
You got a piece of lunchmeat in the third quarter losses are down since that first day when you truly lost most of it all.
Have some roina pie with chicken toots all over on top.
Tastes like one of them sour little weenies from a Libby's dinner.
Bask-apple heroin for evan dessert served single boil pouch end the humour.

You've heard this before? Me too. I liked it enough and did it to you again.

How to get fifty percent more than yesterday calculated fast?
Times yesterday by "1.5" (this gets better once off).
Maybe you only got thirty-three percent (33%) more - use "1.33" for that number a guess no more.
That's not the same as just isolating thirty-three percent. You may see that.

That figure is exactly forty-two percent (42%) more than last year's figure.
What was last year's figure?
Divide that figure by "1.42" to get the goods again.

Simple and useful to me. Not the same as simple percent we growth (add) and margin (hide).
Keep it two decimal places ever for percent unless quarters of make sense.
".25" to ".125" to ".0625" to ".03125" to ".015625" cutting each prior to in half.
A quarter, an eighth, a sixteenth, one thirty-second of, this but a sixty-fourth of it sold.
Better to be that than be without this.
You got a coin less than one cent ($0.01)? No one pays with that never say it did.

I love tricks. More:

How many different sequences of the same three (3) cards colored red, yellow, blue?
Three (3) factorial (!) says it again to you three (3) times two (2) times one (1) yeah yeah just do it my way.
Six (6) different shams it says.
What if two (2) grimbly colored it yellow my vour it says back to you haste?
No to fool we only see two (2) different cards colored the same it means nothing to us yet.
Ask another question think of us to quite less.

Well, hors d'overs - a fit of it says.
You got six digits numbered one (6) through six (1) and five (5) positions for each of a single digit.
How many all to tell?
Sixty-six thousand six hundred sixty-six (66,666)!
No, that is somehow elegant ask anew receive your heart-shaped pinge.
The correct version is six (6) to the fifth (5) power (a power "raises" a number to times by the self of sure).
That is just simply ever seven thousand seven hundred seventy-six (7,776) it's to unlikely you must guess.
Somewhat less of yours.
You need digits seven, eight, nine, plus a zero (7,8,9 + 0) for all that my SneedMartin.
A little collage prap wouldn't wish that one back to well either.
Back right in just tables you hafta figure that stuff out on your own time I don't reason the road.

I hear ya yet - you are still dumb ever to me. Seek more of the self to bear I'll help it to less.
A near-retard seeks to guest spoilage. Is that oft else?
Oh, we never gain from being that of you done right down.
We are interested in doing well thank to not. Who said anything about you?

No.

And remember our vow - nine (9) is never to square.
A square is always equal (that means no sense more) to one (1). Period.
We divide a square by four (4) smaller ones to get to smaller squares of only.
A square divided by four (4) is still a square nothing in the middle.
A square is one (1) times one (1) to equal one (1) only.
One (1) each side is akin to one hundred percent (100%) each side done.
Nine (9) has no one hundred percent (100%) total going across as three (3) equals described perfectly.
Firm that first.
You need one hundred percent (100%) across any one side and then need be equally divisible by two (2).
No not three (3) with one on top of the line I'm sure of or one percent (1%) left out per side.
One-third (1/3) of what equals what?
What?

No.

How
many bytes are in a kilobyte?
One thousand twenty-four (1,024).
A byte is eight (8) bits or switches on-off.
A byte's sequence potential or number of different combinations 'on' and 'off' is two hundred fifty six (256).
As above learned, that is two (2) to the eighth (8) power.
A block of memory is four (4) bytes long (as stacked up) or two hundred fifty-six (256) times four (4).
That is one thousand twenty-four (1,024) combinations written in any signal - a pump, a rail.
How many bytes then in a megabyte (this is still same)?
One million forty-eight thousand five hundred seventy six (1,048,576).
Or, one thousand twenty-four (1,024) times one thousand twenty-four (1,024).
After all, a million (1,000,000) is just one thousand (1,000) times one thousand (1,000).
That's more than you had in the head now admit that.
A gigabyte so fancy - how much to that?
One billion seventy-three million seven hundred forty-one thousand eight hundred twenty-four (1,073,741,824).
Or, one thousand twenty-four (1,024) times one thousand twenty-four (1,024) times one thousand twenty-four (1,024).
After all, a billion (1,000,000,000) is just one thousand (1,000) times a million (1,000,000).
How much a terrabyte?
Mind says one trillion six billion ninety-two million forty-seven thousand six hundred forty-eight (1,006,092,047,648).
Sound rights to me no computer calcs that right one thousand twenty-four (1,024) to the fourth (4) power sees it maybe.
I don't labor for that I simply understand how it is done.
A trillion (1,000,000,000,000) - a thousand (1,000) times a billion (1,000,000,000) - no big deal.

Answer to that.

My answer? 1,099,411,627,676.
Spell that yourself - I'm busy dealing with the ultimate failure of other-else said.
I hate authority failure.
Now.
But then again, a thousand (1,000) isn't a number past a million (1,000,000) - it is counted twice and once.
Leave one number as one of them off - see it better.
The above regal number done by hand and yet divided by 1,073,741,824 a gigabyte (as done in Excel) yields "1023.906868" - just slightly off.
The forest spoken afor.
However, if I add the quantity "1" to the numerator at each step, the quotient goes down.
It should be closer to.
If I'm just pushing the denominator (bottom) into the numerator (top) as simple volumes, there should be more quotient or coverage afoot, but there ain't.
A computer flaw or trick down I see it.
Someone said "all they managed to achieve" but that ain't me and my interest here - we talk of theory or how much to see.
"Oh, so bored you read e-mail at once ruled to trash."

In Fact Let's Update:

Oh, the people at Linux Guruz say a "terabyte" (sic) it's actually 1,099,511,627,776.
Oh, I'm only 100,000,100 off (just that shy)!
"No" say Excel.
By the way, I'm right and I'm wrong.
Wait see.
The spelling is from "tetris" plus "tetral".
"Tetris" means "of the Earth".
"Tetral" means "counted".
Both together represent my speed in doing to you - not a quantity.
Quantities represent me with one "r" unless you did it.
You do what has not been achieved to my circumspect.
You have never produced a block of memory that big.
I said "no" to you by not having it here.
Do you have it?
I don't.
Two "r's" please - for now as not achieved.
You don't have fixed memories that big, you aggregate them.
Fixed cannot be separated for duty (two phone lines for that - one in, one out - a duplex says it).
Say it best.

This argument is very Harry Potter did it all meself now as to feel so good.