how to get the calendar for the year 10000 like we get calendar for say year 2010.
$ cal 2010
2010
Jan Feb Mar
S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 28 29 30 31
31
Apr May Jun
S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30
30 31
Jul Aug Sep
S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30
Oct Nov Dec
S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31
31
have you tried with the following command
cal 10000
Which OS you are using?
I am using HP-UX. See the terminal display snapshot.
$ uname -a
On HP-UX the year between 1 and 9999.cal - HP-UX
1 Like
ctsgnb
February 15, 2011, 8:57am
5
.... strange ...
The calendar should be the same every 28 years. So to get the calendar of year 10000 you could just :
cal `expr 10000 - 28`
but i noticed that
cal 1 1900
and
cal 1 1928
gives different results....
cal n YYYY
cal n (YYYY+x*28)
gives the same result
1 Like
Those're pre-1978 dates, so it could be an epoch fail...
pludi
February 15, 2011, 10:52am
7
No epoch error, just remember the leap year calculations. 1900 was not a leap year (it's a leap year if the year is divisible by 4, but not 100, except when also divisible by 400), and so the time between January 1900 and January 1928 is missing 1 day (February 29th, 1900 doesn't exist). In March of the respective years the calendars match up again.
As for the original question: the man cal (POSIX) utility only has to support dates between September 14, 1752 and December 31, 9999 (both Gregorian calendar):
The cal utility shall write a calendar to standard output using the Julian calendar for dates from January 1, 1 through September 2, 1752 and the Gregorian calendar for dates from September 14, 1752 through December 31, 9999 as though the Gregorian calendar had been adopted on September 14, 1752.
1 Like
ctsgnb
February 15, 2011, 11:03am
8
OMG ....
chk_leap(){
[[ $(($1%400)) -eq 0 ]] || [[ $(($1%100)) -ne 0 ]] && [[ $(($1%4)) -eq 0 ]] && echo "$1 IS a leap year" || echo "$1 is NOT leap year"
}
chk_leap "$1"
rbatte1
February 15, 2011, 12:09pm
9
Remember also that as you go backwards, there are missing days when calendars were 'corrected'.
From "The Mystery of the Missing Days" on www.genealogytoday.com
On September 2, 1752, an odd happening occurred that's still keeping genealogists on their toes. On that day, the British Isles and all the English colonies, including America, lost 11 days--September 3 through 13. People went to sleep and when they awoke the next morning, the date had changed to September 14. There were riots in rural villages since the people thought the government was trying to cheat them out of 11 days of their lives. Though these days disappeared in English lands in 1752, a number had already vanished in other places--France in 1582, Austria in 1584, and Norway in 1700.
Personally I can't even remember when I was a lad, but I suppose there may be a need to go back this far and it has been coded by someone.
RBATTE1 @ /usr/home/RBATTE1>cal 1752
1752
January February
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
March April
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30
May June
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
31
July August
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
September October
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
November December
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 1 2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
RBATTE1 @ /usr/home/RBATTE1>
Do I get a saddo badge for this? :o
Anyway, I suppose one should ask why you want to get this far through the calendars and see if we can help address that issue.
Robin
pludi
February 15, 2011, 12:15pm
10
Yep, those days are missing because of the correction that was required when switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian.
On a side note: today (Feb 15) 30 years ago the British switched to base 10 in their currency. IMO there's a pattern here when it comes to the Empire and international standards
rbatte1
February 15, 2011, 12:59pm
11
I think you will find it was forty years ago, i.e. 1971 and before I was born
Robin
Scott
February 15, 2011, 1:17pm
12
You have a strange sense of humor
But it was 40 years, just after I was born. I'm glad they changed it. I couldn't make head nor tail of it before!
it must have been lost in translation somewhere, like the letter u in the correct spelling of colour. 