सिद्धान्तशिरोमणि: गोलाध्याय (भास्कराचार्य - मरीचि भाष्य एवं पं. केदारदत्त जोशी सविस्तार व्याख्या)

, then it would be 'नतः'.
If it has 'ा', it is 'नातः'.
Wait, what if it is 'अतः'?
Look at 'अ' in 'अनयोर्' (L14):
Top bar, left 3-shape, middle horizontal bar connecting to the right vertical stem.
In this mystery letter:
Is there a left 3-shape?
No, it is a single loop, exactly like 'त' or 'न'.
Wait, if it's 'ततः', why would it be "ततः सिद्धः ।"? "From that, [it is] proved."
In Sanskrit commentary: "ततः सिद्धः" or "ततः सिद्धम्" is extremely common! ("ततः सिद्धः [विधिः / प्रकारः / ...] ।")
Or "ततः सिद्धे एते कनिष्ठज्येष्ठे..." (if the typesetter put a danda and visarga mistakenly).
Looking at the type, "ततः सिद्धः ।" is very plausible, but wait, look at the first letter again:
Could it be "नातः सिद्धः ।"? In some debates/commentaries: "नातः सिद्धः [अर्थः] । एते कनिष्ठज्येष्ठे..."
Wait, let's look at the letter: the loop is at the bottom left, like 'न'. But wait, look at 'त' in 'तथा' (L8):
The left arm of 'त' goes left and drops straight down.
In this letter, the