gmalivuk wrote:Though in fairness the version phillip suggested was better arranged, similar to how it's fairly easy to tell at a glance how many symbols are on a die or playing card or domino.
I agree, to some extent. But as an obvious example of 'handwriten' symbols (mouse-clicks-in-Paint?) that example sheet shows that 'messiness' can rearrange the dots around a bit to (nearly) touch each other and the boundary and subtly shift the presumed deliberate pattern.
Dice/domino-dot patterns for 0 to 9 are commonly used¹ that are also perfectly recognisable in any rotational(/reflective) position (unlike having to underline 6
in numeral-based labels, even on trionimos where "the
edge is down" also applies²) and might even be improvements on this version of the idea.
Though I imagine anyway
that unless this is a sort of cuniform writing system (impressions easily made for dots, the harder part being the containing stroke unless you have a 'cookie-cutter pen' specially for impressing that) handwriting the dots will turn into a cursive zig-zag of not-quite-lifted-pen-marks that eventually
would resolve into a standardised squiggle for each pattern that bears a mere shadow of its original poly-dotted purpose whilst uniquely resembling a 'digit' that whatever futurekind persons there are may describe similarly to the OP complaint about the '5'.
(On a seven-segment display, the 5 is, along with only the 4 and 6, a digit that agrees directly with the magnitude of its segmentage!)
¹ Typically being: None, single central, two opposing corners, …and central, all four corners, …and central, two parallel corner-edge-corner rows, …and central, all corners and mid-edges, …and the middle one to complete the grid.
² I'd also mention the conventions used in British OS map contour-height labelling, especially as they converted from imperial feet heights to metric metre ones, but that's a whole interesting/boring[delete as inapplicable]
thread of its own!