What number is supposed to be here?
-
It is a 5.
Nothing left to guess. All others can be ruled out with the dots that we actually see.
2 can be ruled out because there is one dot wrong in the upper left corner.
3 can be ruled out because there is one dot wrong in the lower left corner.
7 can be ruled out because there is one dot wrong in the lower left corner.
I reckon it's a 3 and the other visible 3 has a column missing as well.
-
I say 5. Look at the 3 at the top. It has a flat bottom, while the one you want to know does not.
wrote last edited by [email protected]But look at the 3 closer. It's 4 dots wide. It's missing the leftmost column of dots.
-
That's a fucking J lmao
Ah yes, the 29th of OJ
-
I reckon it's a 3 and the other visible 3 has a column missing as well.
Bottom 3 dots do not match.
-
Bottom 3 dots do not match.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's a 3
-
This post did not contain any content.
A lowercase 8
-
The top left and bottom right dots should line up entirely but it's a misprint so I don't think an eight can be discounted entirely:
(I used a rectangle to overlay to show the alignment against a known straight line)
but it's a misprint so I don't think
OK so we need to align assumptions
I am going with the assumption that an unknown amount is missing, but these dots that we can see are all in their correct places.
If you want to assume that the dots that we can see may be wrong, then I won't discuss your conclusions any further.
-
but it's a misprint so I don't think
OK so we need to align assumptions
I am going with the assumption that an unknown amount is missing, but these dots that we can see are all in their correct places.
If you want to assume that the dots that we can see may be wrong, then I won't discuss your conclusions any further.
They're within the margin of error to be aligned as an eight but I dunno, maybe take this post a little less seriously and go outside? Yeesh.
-
Actually now I am too. The digits all seem to be normally 5 dots wide.
Except zero for some reason.
-
It's a 3
I think you're right.
The 2's, 7's, and 8's, as well as the letters B, C, D, and L are all 5 dots wide. The 1 is only 3 wide, and the 0 is only 4 wide, but each seems to have a larger gap to the next number. The punctuation (colon and period) seems to be 2 dots wide with significant spacing around them. That suggests this font is a monospaced font with each character 5 dots wide, spaced 2 dots apart.
So it makes sense for 3 to use all 5 dots of width. And the one unambiguous 3 we see is 4 dots wide, placed in a spot approximately one dot too far right. The way you've filled in the 3 makes the most sense, and leads to the straightforward conclusion that the unidentified character is a 3.
-
Except zero for some reason.
I made a comment above explaining why I think it's a monospaced font with each character 5 dots wide, with 2 dots of space between characters. The 1 uses 3 dots and the 0 uses 4, while the period and colon use 2 dots of width. But each of these less than 5-dot-wide characters also is surrounded by more than the typical 2 dots worth of space, proportional to the assumption that each character is assigned 5 dots of width.
-
Except zero for some reason.
To differentiate it from O - making 0 narrow is a common way to do that
-
But look at the 3 closer. It's 4 dots wide. It's missing the leftmost column of dots.
Team 3 checking in!
-
This post did not contain any content.
The moment I saw it I immediately read it as a 3.
-
This post did not contain any content.
3 is the lower number that could fit there. Other numbers could fit depending on how much erase there was, but 3 is the lowest, thus the safest guess.
-
It's a 3
That's great. I could see it was a 3 but I couldn't explain how I knew until I scrolled.
The pattern that the 7 above was also clipped revealing the edge of the 3 also was missed made it click.
Neat!
I wouldn't have caught the 6 over there was clipped though. That's some analysis right there. Thorough.
-
But look at the 3 closer. It's 4 dots wide. It's missing the leftmost column of dots.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Oh yeah, you're right. I missed that lol
edit: but how did you know that the one on the top was missing the curve?
-
Ah yes, the 29th of OJ
When the ancients performed the ritual Race of the White Bronco.
-
3 is the lower number that could fit there. Other numbers could fit depending on how much erase there was, but 3 is the lowest, thus the safest guess.
3 doesn't fit because the lower left dot doesn't match the position of the same dot in the 3 above it.
