There are five handwritten zeros on that script. 4 of them have horizontal strokes to the left of the zero, with that stroke connected to the zero. Two of those are minus signs, two are the crossbars from the tops of a “5”.
The fifth zero is in the left axis field, which does not have a horizontal stroke connected to the zero. If the doctor wrote all their zeros with that weird tail to the top left, why does that one zero lack that tail?
The answer is that they wrote all five zeros the same way, and four of them have deliberate horizontal strokes before them. Where those strokes aren’t from the fives, they can only be from minus signs.
I have never seen a cylinder correction of the opposite sign of the spherical correction: if one is negative, they are both negative.
Furthermore, I have never seen a positive spherical or cylindrical correction lacking a plus sign. If they intended a positive correction, they would have included an explicit “+” instead of nothing.
The axis numbers are -0.25, and -0.50.
When you can’t see out of the glasses you ordered from Zenni, this is why.
I missed it the first time around, but the doctor had two more zeros in the dates: neither has that leading line. Those are minus signs on the cylinder fields.
Your doctor does know how to write a zero. They did not write a zero. It’s not a “zero”. It’s a minus 0.25 and a minus 0.50.
If you don’t have those minus signs, the cylinder correction is going to double your astigmatism, not negate it.
Nope. Same handwriting, according to you, would yield…
-0 .5 -0
That’s how the doctor apparently wrote his zeroes.
There are five handwritten zeros on that script. 4 of them have horizontal strokes to the left of the zero, with that stroke connected to the zero. Two of those are minus signs, two are the crossbars from the tops of a “5”.
The fifth zero is in the left axis field, which does not have a horizontal stroke connected to the zero. If the doctor wrote all their zeros with that weird tail to the top left, why does that one zero lack that tail?
The answer is that they wrote all five zeros the same way, and four of them have deliberate horizontal strokes before them. Where those strokes aren’t from the fives, they can only be from minus signs.
I have never seen a cylinder correction of the opposite sign of the spherical correction: if one is negative, they are both negative.
Furthermore, I have never seen a positive spherical or cylindrical correction lacking a plus sign. If they intended a positive correction, they would have included an explicit “+” instead of nothing.
The axis numbers are -0.25, and -0.50.
When you can’t see out of the glasses you ordered from Zenni, this is why.
Others tell me the axis numbers are 134 and 70. You’re probably referring to the cylindrical measurements.
Comparing all to the spherical measurements, the eye doctor distinctly noted the negative symbol apart from the numbers.
That weird shaped zero is consistent across the prescription, that’s not a preceding negative symbol, that’s just how she wrote her zeroes.
I missed it the first time around, but the doctor had two more zeros in the dates: neither has that leading line. Those are minus signs on the cylinder fields.