>>11950136The BHK interpretation is the "computational" interpretation of logic, for example: to get a proof of A -> B you need a function f that converts a proof of A to a proof of B.
That only explain the first two lines in the truth table, the last two are explained by negation: if you have a proof of A -> absurdity, then you have a proof of ~A, what does that mean? If it is NOT the case that A is true (~A), then you could say things like " if A is true, then there are no genders" (from false shit you can infer anything,even false shit).
You can see that using the BHK interpretation you get constructive mathematics and this is how i think about mathematics, it just makes sense to me.
The Truth Table is another view of mathematics, it's more of a semantical view of mathematics that doesn't have computational content, take a look at the first line, if P and Q are true then P -> Q is true, no matter if they are related or not.
