Nice Neat Numerals

I dislike the system of Indo-Arabic numerals.  I find base ten to be a suboptimal decision, although
any choice of base is arbitrary; the shapes of the symbols unnecessarily favour the eight, which has
no relation to most of the others.  I've long thought about the characteristics I'd want in a system
of numerals: to number the symbols thirty; to draw each without lifting the pen; to distinguish them
regardless of rotation or mirroring, and even damage to an extent; to use a single skeleton for all;
and to notice the primes given distinct shapes, with the composites following from them accordingly.

I've filled out all slots here, but am pleased by fewer than the twenty-nine symbols listed.  A base
sixty system is nicer in many ways, although I very much like how thirty is the product of the first
three primes whereas sixty has an additional two, and a base sixty system can be made from this with
the addition of a line above the symbols to indicate the numbers from thirty to fifty-nine.  Perhaps
zero should be indicated with a blank symbol; I in any case decline to come up with a symbol for it.

The first five symbols have the special quality of their order corresponding to their stroke counts,
such as the fifth symbol indicating five requiring five strokes to write.  I wavered on my choice of
symbol for seven, but it required seven strokes, and that made my decision easier after noticing it.

The symbol for one is so simple as to be unworthy of further attention.  I'm particularly pleased by
my symbol for two and how it combines with itself to represent the products four, eight, and sixteen
so well; however, the symbol for sixteen suffers from a lack of space as some others do, and written
by human hand may do well to have a flourish in its bottom left corner.  My symbol for three is also
pleasant to me, forms nine quite nicely, and yet suffers similarly from compression in twenty-seven.

My symbol for five took much more thought than the other early symbols, but I'm perhaps pleased with
it the most, especially in how it forms twenty-five.  I devised my symbol for seven only recently by
recycling a symbol I'd designed several years ago, and it combines well enough with two and three to
form fourteen and twenty-one with a characteristic shape, but it forms twenty-eight less pleasantly,
perhaps.  Eleven and thirteen are the final two primes whose products are less than thirty, and thus
the last two whose shapes need to mix with others; I see my symbols for twenty-two and twenty-six to
be fine.  All later primes use rather meaningless symbols, chosen for difference more than anything.

I'm pleased least by some of the composites.  The higher numbers whose symbols are younger generally
please me the least.  In particular, the symbols for twelve, fourteen, and fifteen are questionable.
.