Talk:Hans Rademacher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle name[edit]

Was his middle name really "Adolph" rather than "Adolf"? That's a bit surprising. Google confirms 8 hits for Adolph against zero for Adolf, so it seems to be true (though 8 hits is a shaky foundation), but if there's a story behind it it might be interesting to see it. --Trovatore 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph is a common variation of Adolf. Compare Rudolf. Ncik 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a common variation in Germany? At one time "Adolph" was a reasonably common English name, but I was unaware it was ever a German name. Mostly I just want to make sure his name isn't being translated; I really hate it when people translate names (as opposed to merely transliterating them when their original language doesn't use the Latin alphabet). I'd have to agree that the evidence in this case, what there is of it, is that "Adolph" was the name he used. --Trovatore 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Adolph' might actually be an English name (or the English version of German 'Adolf', or so). However, this doens't bar anybody from christening a non-English person 'Adolph'. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf lists some German Adolphs. Ncik 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

My rule of thumb for mathematician bios is that the main article should be under the form of their name under which they most often published; the fuller form of their name can appear in the article (compare Steve Jackson (mathematician). According to that rule, if others agree with it (can't find anything directly on-point in the style manual), this article should be moved back to Hans Rademacher, though Hans Adolph might still appear in the article text. If "Adolph" was introduced in order to distinguish him from Hans-Bert Rademacher, then maybe someone should write at least a stub on the latter. --Trovatore 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős number[edit]

His Erdős number is 5 (via Otto Toeplitz). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.98.189 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]