Talk:G. H. Hardy

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)

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 by 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 &mdash; Alan_Turing, 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 &mdash; 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." &mdash; 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. - cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 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)
 * As is common with many Wikipedia biographies, unnatural sexuality is attributed to a famous man, this time on the authority of J. E. Littlewood. Hardy was supposed to be "&hellip; according to those who knew him best, a non-practising homosexual (Littlewood's phrase)." If he didn't practice or exhibit such aberrant behavior, what was the basis of Littlewood's judgment? Was Littlewood privy to the depths and recesses of Hardy's unconscious mind where he could read Hardy's hidden wishes? Did Hardy ever declare that he was a "non-practising homosexual"? His use of the word "romantic" in his description of the Ramanujan collaboration was, most likely, a reference to works of fictional, exotic adventure, rather than pederastic attraction.Lestrade 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

These commentaries are homophobic : "unnatural sexuality" and "aberrant behaviour", it is not neutral. Without people like that, Turing could be still alive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Thank you for ceasing to remove the comments you abhor from the talk page. I apologize if I reverted once too many. --Rpresser 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire wondered : How is it possible that such unnatural behaviour is actually so natural ? Voltaire was more clever than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.121.251 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Homophobic" means "afraid of the same." Also, it is unnatural and aberrant for two people of the same gender to engage in sexual intercourse. Lestrade (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The statement in the article of Hardy being "according to those who knew him best, a non-practising homosexual" is sourced to the book by Miller, whose treatment of Hardy is peripheral. Miller, in turn, quotes Kanigel on the matter. Kanigel cites Littlewood, but does not appear to give a source. Kanigel's view is that although "Hardy himself was at least of homosexual disposition."…."one cannot conclude that Hardy was a practising homosexual". There appears to be nothing explicitly about the sexuality of Hardy in the writings of C. P. Snow. I have changed reference [4] to Kanigel because he is closer to the primary sources and gives the more extensive insight into Hardy's life and upbringing. The citation from Littlewood needs to be verified; if it can't be, then I think the statement above should be removed. At the least, "those who knew him best" need to be specified. If Littlewood is the only person to express the view then this should be stated. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Since the identities of "those who knew him best" have not been revealed I have removed the unsourced material. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC).


 * If I were a non–practising engineer, then I would not be an engineer. If I had the disposition to be a florist, but never once touched a flower, would I be a florist? Hidden, inner mental characteristics that are never outwardly expressed can be considered non–existent.Lestrade (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

This is hardly worth answering, given some comments by Lestrade above ("aberrant", "pederastic", etc.). Still - the fact that this facet of Hardy's character was expressed in his life is beyond question (see the quotation by Snow below); what is more to the point is that (a) this may be excessive information for a brief biographical page of this length, (b) it is difficult to name exactly what this "facet" is; common categories (again by Snow) may not quite fit. Feketekave (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

"The Apology is dated" and POV
M a s, in your edit summary, you wrote:

Schutz - this one is from a mathematician, 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

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)

The play 'A disappearing number' emphasizes their relationship and is a very good play —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.133.66 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I had removed the phrase " mentor of Ramanujan" and replaced with postal partner if anyone has a better word than this, then please edit it. I would be grateful Uddhav9 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "mentor"? It seems to describe very accurately their relationship. "Postal partner" makes little obvious sense. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Then replace it with collaboration. He wasn't tutor of Ramanujan. Ramanujan is way smarter than him Uddhav9 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Mentor" doesn't mean "tutor." Ramanujan was in a mathematics class by himself, everybody knows that, but he needed somebody to bring him into the world's math network - that's what this concerns.  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't make forum comments such as "x is way smarter than y". Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mentor is fine with me. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

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)

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)

Three great English mathematicians: Hardy, Littlewood, Hardy-Littlewood
This story is not helpful as stated, since (1) there is no source (2) we don't know whose opinion it is. If anyone has more information please provide it, both in this article and in John Edensor Littlewood where the same story is told. Robert Kanigel in The Man Who Knew Infinity quotes the story on p. 165 and in the footnotes says "This has become a commonplace in mathematical circles", which means it may be unverifiable. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kanigel is an acceptable secondary source. Wiki editors are not expected to do original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I agree that Kanigel is an acceptable secondary source, but we still need to know who made the statement originally, otherwise it is "some people say that ...", i.e., WP:WEASEL. The article says that Bohr attributed it to "a colleague". Kanigel has a less detailed story, saying only "somebody said" without mentioning Bohr. As a statement about Hardy's work it seems not to be encyclopedic. Maybe we should take out Bohr, give Kanigel as a source and mark "somebody said" with Template:Who? Or should we just delete the story? --Uncia (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "Kanigel reports a joke that circulated at the time that ............." Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I dug up the source for the Bohr story, and gave an extended quote which shows that Bohr shares the high regard this story illustrates. Unfortunately Bohr did not name the original source, giving it only as "an excellent colleague". --Uncia (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC). I think that is fine. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia has a policy (for better or for worse) of using as few primary sources as possible. What we may need is a secondary source (as opposed to something at the end of a telephone game). Feketekave (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More on sexuality
Personally, I believe we could live very well without categorising people by their sexuality (or race, or "ethnicity", or religion) in Wikipedia - especially when it comes to using labels, which tend to be binary. At the same time, this does not mean we should not *describe* a significant aspect of a deceased person's private life, or of his sentiments or attitudes, as long as this is not an attempt to claim somebody for a particular group.

"Gay" may be an anachronism. We also do not know whether Hardy had male lovers in the physical sense of the word, or even what his physical, as opposed to emotional, proclivities were. At the same time, he was unusually straightforward for the time - at least within a circle of friends - about not being a heterosexual in the sense that most men happen to be. Contemporary sources addressed this shortly after his death: Littlewood, one of his best friends, calls him (somewhat facetiously) a "non-practising homosexual"; C. P. Snow goes into much greater detail (viz., Hardy stated that marriage was an impossibility for him, he was given to strong emotional (but, according to Snow, non-physical) relations with young men, a (male) lost love of his youth had left him changed - this last detail has been fleshed out since; the young man (whose identity is now known) committed suicide).

The current text is fine; at the same time, if we delve more deeply into Hardy's life and psychological makeup later, there is no reason why we should not go over this (more briefly than I have just done, and with citations). Feketekave (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer a user above: we have absolutely zero evidence that Hardy had a crush on Ramanujan. Moreover, he was resolutely against romanticising him; see his remarks in the introduction to his book "Ramanujan". Feketekave (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the primary source that indicates that Littlewood ever called Hardy a "non-practising homosexual"? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

If I remember correctly, Littlewood says that in print, in "Littlewood's miscellany". I don't have it at hand, though; perhaps you can locate the passage. Feketekave (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

- and C. P. Snow says what says in his introduction to A Mathematician's Apology (often printed with it). Feketekave (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find it in a scanned copy of the first edition of the Miscellany. (But then, I may have overlooked it - and it would make a lot of sense for the quote to appear only in the second edition.) The quote was not made up by Kanigel, as I have not read Kanigel and I certainly know the quote. Feketekave (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A primary source is needed before claims of this sort make it into article space. Otherwise Wikipedia descends into celebrity gossip. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Also, a reminder that words can be said without consideration for their literal meaning :D "I like that person" does not necessarily mean that you "like" in any particular sense, just that you approve of (or even just not hold in contempt) the said person. 118.90.44.104 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"I think my experience was shared by most of his close friends. But he had scattered through his life, two or three other relationships, different in kind. These were intense affections, absorbing, non-physical but exalted. The one I knew about was for a young man whose nature was as spiritually delicate as his own. I believe, though I only picked this up from chance remarks, that the same was true of the others. To many people of my generation, such relationships would seem either unsatisfactory or impossible. They were neither the one nor the other; and, unless one takes them for granted, one doesn't begin to understand the temperament of men like Hardy (they are rare, but not as rare as white rhinoceroses), nor the Cambridge society of his time. He didn't get the satisfactions that most of us can't help finding: but he knew himself unusually well, and that didn't make him unhappy. His inner life was his own, and very rich. The sadness came at the end. Apart from his devoted sister, he was left with no one close to him." - from C P Snow's biographical foreword to Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology, pp 26-27. Feketekave (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Empire of the Stars: Obsession, Friendship, and Betrayal in the quest P 37 ...has a reference to the non practicing homosexual

Life
"In 1903 he earned his M.A., which was the highest academic degree at English universities at that time."

I am not sure that "earned" is quite right here. A Cambridge M.A. can be obtained after three years by anybody holding a B.A. All that is required is to pay a small sum and attend the relevant graduation ceremony. The sentence gives the impression that Hardy did something noteworthy to obtain the M.A., which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.163.90 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not have to actually attend a ceremony, but that is beside the point. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

The PhD became the norm in the 1920s. British science facilities generally had the Doctor of Science degree, and most still do in Australia and Canada. Seven papers must be submitted to the university senate from where the BSc or MSc was obtained. The papers must be well referenced, usually a dozen times. Very few scientists have D.Sc. degrees these days. Very few academics bothered to do it in Hardy's times. Given Hardy's tenured position, it would have been a waste of time. One of Hardy's sayings, attributed to him by BC Rennie, when criticizing me, was "If you cannot do mathematics properly, it's not worth doing at all. (I've never done mathematics since then.) " It's a saying that is deeper than it appears. Kantor was proven wrong by Russell. Russell was proven wrong by Godel. Are we right now?14.202.248.10 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Politics
Was he a Communist? I believe I read somewhere that he had a picture of Lenin on his desk, and thought the UK should enter into a political union with the Soviet Union.

To be fair, even in the latter part of his life he lived in a time when it was less unusual for an intellectual, such as he was, to be pro-Soviet than it is now. Meltingpot (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

GH spent most time at Cambridge even though he disliked the place. It was the centre of maths at time. However, he did regard German universities as being the best at science. He returned to Cam in 1930 when the Cambridge gay commies were undergraduates. It's unlikely he ever met them, let alone jumped into the sack with them. He also tried to join the Army in 1915 to fight, but was rejected for multiple health reasons. He spent more time studying cricket than mathematics. He read maths only between 9am and lunch. Cricket (particularly the Australian dominance) and the London Times filled the afternoons. Hardy did not like having his photo taken, and only seven exist.220.244.84.193 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Publications
Seems the list of Hardy's publications is incomplete and should be in chronological order. Seems too many people are obsessed with sex and not concerned about his work.
 * Graemeb1967 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * - The Integration of Functions of a Single Variable 1905
 * - A Course of Pure Mathematics 1908
 * - Orders of Infinity: The 'Infinitärcalcül' of Paul Du Bois-Reymond 1910
 * - The General Theory of Dirichlet's Series 1915
 * - Some Famous Problems of the Theory of Numbers and in particular Waring's Problem 1920
 * - An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers 1928
 * - Divergent Series 1931
 * - Inequalities 1934
 * - A Mathematicians Apology 1940
 * - Ramanujan: Twelve lectures on subjects suggested by his life and work 1940
 * - Bernard Russell and Trinity 1942
 * - Fourier Series 1944
 * Graemeb1967 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G. H. Hardy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716185939/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Hardy.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Hardy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819210402/http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/Research/Discussion_Papers/Mathematics_and_Statistics/maths_dpaper_no_4.pdf to http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/Research/Discussion_Papers/Mathematics_and_Statistics/maths_dpaper_no_4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of GH Hardy
There is no news till now about the death of Hardy and the place where he is resting or cremated... Gamaliel Hardy (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki edits about Hardy
What rationale do you need about those edits and what is so questionable about it? It is all perfectly laid out there.


 * What is this in reference to? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In reference to edits you and Xxanthippe keep reverting back, obviously.


 * I'm the other editor who reverted, actually. This is about the move of several entities in the "see also" list to the "known for" section of the infobox and possibly a few other changes that are not obvious on inspection.
 * Other editors placed information in the places they did for some reason (maybe highly reasoned, maybe haphazard). Wikipedia is collaborative and works by consensus. Concepts like "known for" have an element of opinion which can vary by editor's experience. Please provide support for your opinion. What you think is obvious or "perfectly laid out" might not be to other editors. The fact that editors have asked you to show your reasoning suggests otherwise. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They do have an element of opinion in which case you might revert edits of most other people. But in this case he is known for that, as evident by his name in wiki links lol. I have deleted 'see also' input in order for not having the same things being repeated twice and I have also added more things.
 * While the manual of style discourages duplication of entries found in body text, the infobox is not body text. The infobox does not need to be an exhaustive list; the Template specifies "Key topics/areas of study in which the scientist is notable", and fewer entries can be more informative. While well-intentioned, the proposed changes are not an improvement based on the structure of Wikipedia articles. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also - sign your comments, please; otherwise it's hard to tell who's writing what. a dash and four tilde's will automatically sign it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please obtain consensus, on talk page, for edits, following WP:BRD. Users who WP:Edit war can have their editing privileges restricted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
 * What's a matter now? I agreed with you and I only expanded See also list. What is the f problem? - 95.156.148.91 (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Aphorisms Section
The aphorism section was recently deleted with reasonable justification from the guidelines, but I think we lose a good sense of the gentleman. I'd be inclined to ignore the rules here. Any thoughts? ? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should go back despite pedantic Wikilawyering: WP:IAR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

The section is misnamed, these are not really aphorisms. The selection criteria is unclear, many suitable alternatives on Wikiquote. A better solution would be to integrate some aphorisms into the article, but this would require a secondary source to avoid Original Research. Do we have a secondary source which says something like "his book A Mathematician's Apology gives a a good sense of the man"? cagliost (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)