AI-generated conjecture · below the evidence/publication boundary
← All conjectures · Chance & decision
Dating divination by its odds
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)
Dating divination by its odds. The two classical ways of casting the I Ching generate hexagrams with different statistics: the older yarrow-stalk procedure is asymmetric — its line-types fall with unequal probabilities, making some changing lines markedly likelier than others — while the later coin method is symmetric between yin and yang. Any corpus of recorded divinations is therefore a sample from whichever probability distribution the diviners were actually using, and the casting method leaves its fingerprint in the line frequencies. The conjecture: early received hexagram records — the divination accounts preserved in the Zuozhuan — should match the asymmetric yarrow-stalk probabilities, and later corpora should drift to the symmetric coin statistics, so that frequency analysis alone yields a statistical date for the change of method. It is chronology by odds: where the texts are silent about procedure, the arithmetic of the castings testifies.
Prediction clause (verbatim)
For the divination records in the Zuozhuan and in dated later corpora, tabulate line-type and changing-line frequencies and score each corpus against the theoretical yarrow-stalk and coin-method distributions by likelihood. Primary clause: the Zuozhuan records fit the asymmetric yarrow probabilities better than the symmetric coin probabilities (likelihood ratio favouring yarrow), and at least one later corpus shows the reverse preference, bracketing a method transition between them. The verdict follows the primary clause.
Kill-dataset (verbatim)
frequency analysis of Zuozhuan vs later corpora.
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 underlying probability asymmetry (yarrow-stalk ~3:1:7:5-type vs symmetric coin ~1:3:3:1) is documented, including a recent big-data simulation paper, and the Zuozhuan divination episodes are philologically treated; the dating-by-probability-signature join was not located. Feasibility caveat that must survive into any registration: the philological literature treats only ~6 Zuozhuan hexagram-divination cases — the proposed frequency test may be statistically underpowered at the source.
- Zheng & Cao, 'Big Data Analyzing the Asymmetry of 64 Hexagrams Based on the Yarrow-stalk Method' (SSRN) — Method-probability characterization
- Kidder Smith, 'Zhouyi Interpretation from Accounts in the Zuozhuan' — ~6 recorded cases — sample-size problem
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.