As as footnote to Henning Makholm's answer, you might find the opening six pages of my Notes on Category Theory helpful. They too give the example of a monoid as a category, and also some other examples of categories where the arrows are not functions in any ordinary sense.

In fact this illustrates why we might well prefer to talk of 'arrows' rather than 'morphisms' (because the very term 'morphism' comes with baggage, and almost inevitably makes us think of a function -- but to repeat, arrows need not be functions).

In addition to Henning Makholm's crisp and clear answer, you might find the opening six pages of my Notes on Category Theory helpful. They too give the example of a monoid as a category, but also give some other examples of categories where the arrows are not functions in any ordinary sense. Another important illustration is the case of a posets treated as a category.

In fact these examples suggest why we might well prefer to talk of 'arrows' rather than 'morphisms' (because the very term 'morphism' comes with baggage, and almost inevitably makes us think of a function -- but to repeat, arrows need not be functions).

As as footnote to Henning Makholm's answer, you might find the opening six pages of my Notes on Category Theory helpful. They too give the example of a monoid as a category, and also some other examples of categories where the arrows are not functions in any ordinary sense.

In fact this illustrates who we might well prefer to talk of 'arrows' rather than 'morphisms' (because the very term 'morphism' comes with baggage, and almost inevitably makes us think of a function -- but to repeat, arrows need not be functions).

As as footnote to Henning Makholm's answer, you might find the opening six pages of my Notes on Category Theory helpful. They too give the example of a monoid as a category, and also some other examples of categories where the arrows are not functions in any ordinary sense.

In fact this illustrates why we might well prefer to talk of 'arrows' rather than 'morphisms' (because the very term 'morphism' comes with baggage, and almost inevitably makes us think of a function -- but to repeat, arrows need not be functions).