A technical term having a different meaning in two different fields doesn’t mean that the version with which you’re more familiar is correct and everyone else is wrong. That would be like commenting on an article entitled “Syrian rebel forces take Damascus” to say “National-security people keep using the word ‘forces’. I don’t think it means what they think it means. To me, force equals mass times acceleration.”
I don't have a background in mathematics either, but I think it's quite clear that the use of "isomorphic" here as a stand in for code sharing is forced, to say the least.
It's the same kind of silliness as using the term "tree shaking" in place of dead code elimination (which is, you know, an established technical term in the same field). In this instance however, instead of using a fancy-sounding word (which I think is a little pretentious), they've gone with an analogy with a less obvious meaning (what are you shaking from the tree? Are the good bits falling off also?).
I don’t think it means what they think it means.
To me, two types of values are isomorphic if they share the same cardinality. The isomorphism between two isomorphic types is a pair of morphisms (functions) that when composed one after the other is the same as doing nothing.
This word is a couple hundred years old, so it long predates front-end development. It has a pretty specific and established meaning in mathematics. It’s not right to use this word when you just mean “shared code”.