Connection between logic and set theory? I just noticed there is a similarity between logic operations on propositions and the operations of set theory. It seems:
$$\begin{array}{llll}
\textrm{disjunction} & (-)\vee (-)& \textrm{corresponds to union}& (-)\cup (-)\\
\textrm{conjunction} & (-) \wedge (-)& \textrm{correspons to intersection} & (-)\cap (-)\\
\textrm{negation} & \sim (-) & \textrm{correspons to taking complements} & c(-),
\end{array}
$$
and I conjecture:
$$\begin{array}{lll}
\textrm{conditional} & (-)\rightarrow (-) & \textrm{corresponds to inclusion} & \subset\\
\textrm{biconditional} & (-)\leftrightarrow (-) & \textrm{corresponds to equality} & =
\end{array}$$
How far does it go? I believe there is some kind of functor between some category whose objects are propositions and the category of sets, is that right?
Thanks
 A: "How far does it go ?" : as far as it can get ! 
Here's a general idea about how set theory is a semantics for classical propositional logic (note that if we change the formal system we're looking at without changing our assumptions on sets, for instance if we're studying intuitionistic logic from a classical point of view, then we have to take another semantics, in this specific case, topological spaces can be appropriate) :
Suppose you have a set of propositional variables $V$, a "global" set $E$, and a function $[-] :V\to \mathcal{P}(E)$. Then you can build a function that goes from the set $\mathrm{Form}$ of formulas to $\mathcal{P}(E)$ by expanding $[-]$ according to the rules you displayed : if $\varphi, \psi$ are formulas and you already defined $[\varphi]$ and $[\psi]$, then define $[\varphi \land \psi] = [\varphi]\cap [\psi]$, similarly for $\lor, \neg$, and define $[\varphi\implies \psi]$ as $\{x\in E\mid x\in [\varphi]\implies x\in[\psi]\}$. 
These rules allow you to define $[\varphi]$ for any formula $\varphi$ by induction, going from the variables and gaining complexity. 
Then you can prove the following things : if $\varphi$ is a theorem of classical logic, then $[\varphi] = E$, which tells you that the set-operations behave according to the logical ones, but also you can prove : if for any $E$ and any $[-] :V\to \mathcal{P}(E)$, $[\varphi] = E$, then $\varphi$ is a theorem of classical logic ! This tells you that actually the logical operations behave just like set-theoretic operations as well. 
There's actually a lot more you can say about this sort of thing (for instance : what happens if you add quantifiers ? Or in another direction what happens if we replace $\mathcal{P}(E)$ by some other type of object ? If we completely change the type of object, what kind of logic do we get ? etc. etc.)
If you absolutely want to use the words "functor" and "category" you can, but at this level they're not the most relevant thing.
A: Yes, there is an abstract isomorphism here and the likeness of the symbols $\lor$ and $\cup$, as well as that of $\land$ and $\cap$ is of course no accident!
Also, if you use the formal definition of the set operators, we see the connection there as well:
Union:
$\forall A \ \forall B \ \forall x \ (x \in A \color{red}\cup B \leftrightarrow (x \in A \color{red}\lor x \in B))$
Intersection:
$\forall A \ \forall B \ \forall x \ (x \in A \color{red}\cap B \leftrightarrow (x \in A \color{red}\land x \in B))$
Complement:
$\forall A \ \forall B \ \forall x \ (x \in A\color{red}' \leftrightarrow \color{red}\neg x \in A)$
And your conjecture is right in that we also have:
Inclusion:
$\forall A \ \forall B \ (A\color{red} \subseteq B \leftrightarrow \forall x (x \in A \color{red} \rightarrow x \in B))$
Equality:
$\forall A \ \forall B \ (A\color{red} = B \leftrightarrow \forall x (x \in A \color{red} \leftrightarrow x \in B))$
A: The connection is math is a logical science. It's built on a foundation of axioms and definitions, from which ideally, all statements can be proven, or disproven ( though some are undecideable sadly). You can have logical properties with set operations, Sets equipped with operations, having certain properties applied on the set, are the basis for: magmas, monoids, loops, semigroups, quasigroups, groups, abelian groups, rings,  commutative rings, and fields, just to name a few buzzwords. Mathematical logic, can be defined in terms of other more basic logics. 
