AI-generated conjecture · below the evidence/publication boundary
← All conjectures · Money & economy
The 6.6-mile theorem
Status is derived only from the shepherd-authored triage/prediction data above -- community submissions and claims are a separate overlay and can never change it (see the participation panel below).
Claim (verbatim)
The 6.6-mile theorem. In the 13th century, English law adopted a rule for how far apart markets must be — the spacing derived in the classic legal reckoning from a day's return journey on foot, about 6.6 miles. The conjecture joins this statute to the theory of self-organizing spatial equilibria: central-place economics predicts that competing markets space themselves at just such intervals without anyone legislating it, because a market too close to a rival cannot draw a living catchment. If that is right, the law codified an equilibrium rather than creating one, and the geography should show it: English market charters granted before the spacing statute should already exhibit the statutory spacing, with pre-statute nearest-neighbor distances statistically indistinguishable from post-statute ones. A jump in spacing at the statute would mean law made the pattern; continuity means law merely ratified it.
Prediction clause (verbatim)
For each chartered market in the geocoded charter series, compute the nearest-neighbor distance to markets already chartered at its foundation date, split into pre-statute and post-statute cohorts, and compare the two spacing distributions. Primary clause: the pre-statute median nearest-neighbor spacing already lies within one mile of the statutory 6.6-mile norm, and the pre- and post-statute distributions show no significant shift at p < 0.05; a clearly tighter pre-statute spacing that jumps to the statutory value only after the law kills the conjecture. The verdict follows the primary clause.
Kill-dataset (verbatim)
charter geodata pre- and post-statute.
Nobody has run this test. The kill-data is named above. If you can run it — or you know the paper that already settles it — claim the kill or submit the prior scholarship. Kills and prior scholarship are credited here, by name, as they come in.
On Inferpedia
This conjecture has been linked to the following subject pages on Inferpedia — an encyclopedia of the missing, now in limited preview.
Provenance
Run: Imported conversation (verbatim harvest) · model: claude-fable-5
Origin: operator conversation with Claude Fable 5 at max effort, conducted 2026-07-03, relayed verbatim by the operator into the shepherd session on 2026-07-04. No ModelRun exists for the original generation (it happened outside the pipeline); this transcript file is the canonical capture. Transcript path: docs/generated/conjecture_harvest_fablemax_20260703.md. Model (operator-attested, not pipeline-recorded): claude-fable-5. Novelty disclaimer (verbatim, load-bearing -- rule 4): "Same caveat as before, doubled: at 100 items across all of archaeology and history, some of these will have cousins in the literature I can't check. What I can guarantee is the format — each links two things not normally linked, and each names the dataset or measurement that would kill it."
Novelty / leakage triage
anticipated in the literature — this exact test has never been run
The dossier partially undermines the conjecture's framing: the 6⅔-mile spacing was already a stated LEGAL norm before any codifying statute — attributed to Bracton and applied in royal charters (Loughborough, 1227) — so pre-statute spacing conformity could reflect early law rather than self-organized equilibrium; the discriminating window is the pre-Bracton charter record. The empirical spacing measurement itself (charter geodata pre/post) was not located as performed, and the Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs provides the enabling GIS dataset.
- 'Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516' (Centre for Metropolitan History) — Enabling geocoded charter dataset
- Bracton-attributed 6⅔-mile rule applied in 1227 Loughborough charter (Ancient Origins overview) — The rule predates the statute as stated law — framing confound
Predictions
No prediction registered yet.
Weigh in
No community feedback yet.
New here? Create an account first
Create an account or sign in and your feedback is tied to you — you can track it, get replies, and claim this conjecture so others know you’re working on it. Prefer not to? Just leave your take below as a guest — only the name you type is shown.
Add your take
Posted immediately (spam is removed). Community feedback is never an adjudicated verdict and never changes this conjecture's triage label or status above.