I was thinking about a rather simple question, namely: If two things are equal, are they necessarily isomorphic? At first, I thought this was a silly question as it seems that the identity map should provide the isomorphism we are after. However, after thinking about it a little bit more, I started to think of what does equality and isomorphism mean. Thus, I decided to work in a case where I know what equality and isomorphism mean. Here when I say equality, I mean equality of sets (i.e. both sets are subsets of each other), and when I say isomorphism, I mean that in the category that we are working given two objects $A$ and $B$ they are isomorphic if there is $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:B\rightarrow A$ such that $f\circ g=1_B$ and $g\circ f=1_A$. Thus, I thought that if we can cook up a category where $A=B$, but there are no morphisms between $A$ and $B$, then we must have that $A=B$, but $A\not\cong B$.
Thus, I consider the following category where the objects in the category are sets and the morphisms are functions of sets. In this category, I will take two distinct objects $A$ and $B$ where $A$ is the empty-set and $B$ is also the empty set, and the only morphisms will be the identity morphisms $1_A$ and $1_B$. Thus, if we think of the associated graph, it will just consist of two nodes with self loops. Now clearly, we must have that $A=B$ and $\emptyset\subset\emptyset$, but $A\not\cong B$ since there are no arrows between $A$ and $B$. Thus, would this constitute an example where equality does not imply isomorphism?
Furthermore, one might say that this is a silly example since there is a larger category that has this as a subcategory where $A\cong B$ (just "add the identity map between the objects"). Thus, is it always the case that if I have a category where there are objects which are equal but not isomorphic to just "add the identity morphism" between them to arrive at a larger category where equal objects are now isomorphic and contains the original category as a subcategory?