Talk:G. H. Hardy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.
	Mathematics grading:	Start Class	High Importance
A vital article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 comments 2 Sexuality in biographies 3 Moved to Godfrey Harold Hardy 4 "The Apology is dated" and POV 5 Ramanujan 6 Hardy and the game of cricket, etc. 7 Suicide?

[edit] comments

The assertion about Hardy's sexuality is presumably based on CP Snow. It hardly deserves so central a place here.

Charles Matthews 19:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(A comment nine months later) ... And it doesn't deserve a category listing. There appears to be a minor edit war over this at the moment, which I guess I'm about to enter. But putting every single person in wikipedia who was allegedly or admittedly gay into a sexuality-related category is idiotic - particularly when you're dealig with a person like Hardy whose sexuality was not publicly determined. (Wikpiedia isn't a postumous outing organization.) Hardy's sexuality is irrelevant to his public persona, his reason for being in wikipedia. He was also a smoker; shoould we create a "Category: Smokers" and include everybody in wikipedia who puffed on a cigarette or pipe? - DavidWBrooks 01:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How it is dealt with now seems fine to me. As far as I've heard he was celibate; so a category would be overdoing it. Charles Matthews 08:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Below is discussion from the Villiage Pump. The consensus is that homosexuality can be mentioned if done in a way which makes sense.

For what it is worth: Littlewood calls him a "non-practising homosexual", and C. P. Snow concurs; apparently, he was relatively open about his orientation (both parts of it). Perhaps we should simply quote Littlewood? Human beings cannot be put into two discrete boxes. Hasdrubal 00:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, not that there is anything wrong with it. ;) Hasdrubal 00:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, more importantly - categorizing Ramanujan as a "mystical Hindu" is something that gave Hardy the creeps; see his persuasive discussion of the matter at the beginning of (Hardy's book) _Ramanujan_. Hasdrubal 00:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality in biographies

I note that the reference to G. H. Hardy's homosexuality, a trait ascribed to him by a number of people who knew him (Snow, Littlewood, Turing) has been removed from his biography. This has been done not because the information was not correct, but because this sort of information is not regarded ny some people as suitable to a biography. Why is this, and is this any kind of policy? If it is a policy, what precisely is the policy and what is its basis?

I note for example that Michelanglo's biography discusses his sexuality extensively, and Swinburne's mentions masochism. Is this because it is considered relevant to the artist? Hardy was also a literary figure, and his romanticizing of Ramanujan's remarkable gifts might well have something to do with his sexuality both directly and indirectly.

Some random comments: I think it's unquestionably necessary for at least some biographies — Alan_Turing#Prosecution_for_homosexuality.2C_and_Turing.27s_death, for example. For other people, it's less clear cut. My personal opinion is that you have to answer at least two questions:

1. Why are we interested in this person? Is there interest in the person themselves, or are they primarily known for an important contribution? For example, people are intrigued by Turing's life beyond his contributions to logic, computer science, etc.
2. What kind of impact does their sexuality have on the "reason for interest"?

For a famous mathematician, such as Hardy, you could argue that his (rumoured?) sexuality was a private matter and of no relevance to his work or how he came to be famous. You could, I guess, also argue that there is now a wider interest in the details of Hardy's life, so it is worth mentioning — it's notable if someone is homosexual in a culture where it was considered atypical, taboo or even illegal (making it much more notable than if he were heterosexual). We do, after all, include other "life-trivia" such as "Hardy never married, and in his final years he was cared for by his sister." — Matt 10:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Hardy is also a literary figure; his A Mathematician's Apology is still in print after 64 years and is considered a classic; Graham Greene calling it "the best account of what it is like to be a creative artist". To say that he never married amounts to a wink and a nod under the circumstances; isn't it better simply to come right out with it? In any case it seems at least as relevant as his fascination with cricket or his atheism. User: Gene Ward Smith

So long as someone's sexuality is not the focus or most emphasized aspect of their biography on any article here, there is no reason why their sexual and other preferences should not be mentioned, particularly when, as Matt noted, they were taboo or illegal (which was the case with homosexuality in England at the time). It does seem silly to mention it in biographies of very recent Western celebrities however, because they don't face the same challenges and mentioning it seems like overemphasis (IMO)... - Simonides 23:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They don't face the same challenges, but they usually face different ones. For popular entertainers it can influence how closely they guard their privacy; for political figures it has bearing on their policy positions (e.g. either explaining why a conservative Republican favored a gay rights bill, or casting doubt on his integrity if he did not). Shying away from that particular aspect of the person's life when other aspects are discussed implies that it is scandalous or offensive (a POV with which I disagree). In most situations, I don't think that merely mentioning a person's homosexuality is "overemphasis" any more than mentioning another person's apparent heterosexuality (by referring to his wife and seven children). It's simply objective honesty. And I think we're a long way from the point where a homosexual or bisexual orientation really isn't significant to a person's biography; someday when biographers are working on the Wikipedia entries, books, biopics, videogames, and holonovels about me, they're going to find my sexual orientation far more interesting and informative about me than the city or the specific year in which I was born, or what the names of my sisters were. Tverbeek 02:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also don't underestimate the influence this can have on young gay people, who will most likely not be told anyone in history is gay in schools. While it may not be at all relevant to the person's work it is sometimes very relevant to readers as it may give them something on which to relate. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:06, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment; should a person's heterosexuality be mentioned? My own view is that for Oscar Wilde, for example, his sexuality is relevant because it played a major part in his public life, but for many other figures it isn't. Wikipedia is not here to provide role models but to be an encyclopaedia, at the end of the day. Filiocht 11:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if their heterosexuality is somehow notable, yes. For example, if (as I believe) Aubrey Beardsley was heterosexual (and if we can get a reasonably authoritative statement to that effect), that would merit mention, since his close association with Oscar Wilde and the aestheticist movement would probably make people guess otherwise. -- Jmabel 01:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, homosexuality or bisexuality should be mentioned if there is some proof of it aside from rumors and urban legends. In the past, when homosexuality have been illegal, there have been truckloads of malicious rumors that have been used for defamatory purposes. They are not necessarily based in fact. I have also seen unfounded claims (althought I have not noticed any in Wikipedia as of yet) that most of the famous historical people have been closet homosexuals, which is about the same thing in reverse. If the persons have clearly had same-sex beloveds or have clearly indicated that they are homosexuals or bisexuals, that should be mentioned. That should be emphasized mainly if their fame or important event of their life or career was due to their sexuality (in Turing's case, the cause of his loss of security rating) - Skysmith 08:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. If, like Forster, the person's sexuality is of great importance to the work they produce over their lifetime, or emerges as a prominent or constant theme within their work, then yes, their sexuality should be mentioned. Equally, Alan Turing's sexuality is important, as Matt Crypto points out, because it plays an important part in our understanding of his life.

But there is a problem with sticking someone's sexuality in their biography as a minor detail, and/or especially next to their profession. For example,

• "Jane Doe is a lesbian playwright..."

as opposed to simply

• "Jane Doe is a playwright..."

can, IMHO, be seen as pigeonholing and has no place in an encyclopedia. If you take the view that sexuality is something you are born with, then if it has little influence on our understanding of a person's life and actions, it is no more useful than saying-

• "Jane Doe is a blue-eyed playwright...".

Just a thought. Shikasta 18:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I meant is something like this. If the aforementioned Jane Doe would be famous for writing lesbian-themed plays, she could be specifically listed as "lesbian playwright". In that case her fame would be based on her favorite theme. Otherwise she would be listed as a playwright and the fact that she is a lesbian could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, for example in a context of a same-sex partner. - Skysmith 08:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point. We wouldn't say "Isaac Asimov was a bisexual writer", we'd say "Isaac Asimov was a science fiction writer" and mention his bisexuality where relevant; but we might say "Freddie Mercury was a musician and gay icon" or use a similar lead. -Sean Curtin 01:49, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the category and kept C. P. Snow's comment. Beyond agreeing with a comment above as to the silliness of such bottom-of-the-page pigeonholing, the fact is that Hardy resists such pigeonholing to a greater extent than others. He seems to have "out" to his friends, but not in a way that would put him clearly in any current category.

Keeping C. P. Snow's comment might be best, even though Hardy's sexuality (or ethnicity, or culinary preferences, or what have you) seems quite irrelevant to his work and rather secondary as far as his life is concerned. The comment addresses a topic that seems to be of great interest, though whether this interest is justified is another matter altogether. Hasdrubal 23:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to Godfrey Harold Hardy

I moved the page to Godfrey Harold Hardy from G. H. Hardy, since that's how the article begins:

Godfrey Harold Hardy (February 7, 1877 – December 1

The move had the unintended benefit of turning a few red links blue. (For what it's worth, I call him G. H. Hardy, since that's how he appeared on A Mathematician's Apology.) Dbenbenn 07:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but he's probably much better known as "G. H. Hardy".

Articles should always include a person's full name, including all middle names. But that is not necessarily the most appropriate title for the page. Thus there is a Bill Clinton page, and William Jefferson Clinton is merely a redirect, and so forth.

It should probably be moved back. -- Curps 08:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He is much better known as G.H., but as long as one page redirects to the other, it doesn't really matter. I wouldn't bother un-moving it, personally. - DavidWBrooks 14:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It probably does matter, because there are some bots that go around removing redirects by changing links to reflect the actual page title name. Also, given that the first sentence gives his fully spelled-out name, the title of "G. H. Hardy" is in fact the best clue that this is how his name is usually known.

None of the above is specific to Hardy alone, it's true of most biographical pages. Anyways, I moved it back. -- Curps 20:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "The Apology is dated" and POV

M a s, in your edit summary, you wrote:

Schutz - this one is from a mathemetician, but are Amazon reviews considered worthwhile/ encyclopedic?

Borwein's comment is ok (I did not know about this document, but it looks interesting). Maybe you can cite the exact quote and page number ? Amazon reviews are definitively not encyclopedic, since anyone can write anything under a fake identity; the canonical example is The Pet Goat and the reviews "by" or about George W. Bush.

Borwein's paper has a section on Gauss, Hadamard and Hardy, and in subsection 2.3 he describes Hardy as a "stylish author who wrote compellingly in defense of pure mathematics". He calls Hardy's Apology a "spirited defense of beauty over utility". After these words of praise, Borwein adds a single critical comment:

That said, [Hardy's] comment that Real mathematics ... is almost wholly useless has been overplayed and is now to my mind very dated

citing the important applications that fields of algebra and number theory (until 50 years ago seen as the epitome of "pure mathematics") have had in modern cryptography.

I don't know about other criticism of Hardy, but certainly Borweins paper does not "consider Hardy's style and comments dated". He considers Hardy's style elegant, one considers one (famous) comment dated.

(Personally, as a mathematician, I can say that Hardy's Apology has had a deep and lasting influence on my philosophy of mathematics.)

Aleph4 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, and I agree. Maybe I read Borwein's comments in more than one or two places and came to the conclusion that many mathemeticians felt this way. I'll try and dig up at least one more reference other than Amazon. Actually, it might be better to move Borwein to the Apology article itself- there's a section there called "critiques."

I didn't mean to dinegrate the article or the man. I started my fascination with history of this one mildly insignficant* topic (mathematics) by reading E. T. Bell- and that of course has been chewed up and spit out lately.

• tongue in cheek, I hope it's obvious

[edit] Ramanujan

There really needs to an addition to this article about the discovery of Ramanujan, which I feel was a very important part of Hardy's life.

Er, did you read the article? It's in there, quite a lot. - DavidWBrooks 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardy and the game of cricket, etc.

Just out of interest, Hardy's was interested in baseball (during his time in the United States) as well as cricket. (He is said to have proposed some rule changes to the game too - inevitably rejected by the baseball authorities.)

As for cricket, he said:

"Cricket is the only game in which one plays against eleven opponents - and the ten members of one's own team."

I can think of several first-class cricketers who seem to work on this principle.

Hair Commodore 12:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide?

The following text was added by 198.166.26.141

He was a very depressed man, and even attempted suicide several times. To divert him from such an undertaking, one of his good friends suggested he write a book, and so he wrote A Mathematician's Apology. After completing and publishing the work, he again attempted suicide - and was successful.

Now, as far as I can remember (from C. P. Snow's foreword) this is not true. He attempted suicide once, in the summer of 1947 (several years after the Apology was written) when his health was failing, and made such a mess of it that he didn't try again. It wasn't long after that he died but it was from natural causes I think. --Spondoolicks 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)