Does this means that "anything" implies $T$? I'm reading Yves Nievergelt's Logic, Mathematics and Computer Science. Here: 



I am very confused about this. I understand the proof, but does that mean that anything implies $T$? Supposing my interpretation is correct, isn't it weird that anything implies $T$?  

Semantically, to assert $S\Rightarrow T$ is the same as asserting that it is impossible for $S$ to be true and at the same time $T$ is false.
When $T$ is a theorem, it means that we know that $T$ is actually true. So the only situation that could prevent $S\Rightarrow T$ from being true is impossible right out of the gate -- we don't even need to look at $S$. Therefore $S\Rightarrow T$ cannot be false, so it must be true, and therefore it ought to be a theorem.
