Abstract

Is it possible to characterize the notion of proof in terms of acts, without focusing on a specific domain of application and a specific linguistic formalization of it? This is the question that this paper addresses through a comparative analysis between two logicians who reflected on this issue: Kurt Gödel and Jean-Yves Girard. A comparative analysis of their respective theoretical frames, their respective results, the similarities and the differences between their methodological assumptions is proposed. More specifically, the aim of the paper is to compare Gödel’s notion of absolute proof and Girard’s notion of Ludic from their common core: a conception of proof in terms of acts.