This is answered in the article’s second paragraph.

But I don't know that from the proposed re-titling of the article. The importance of the conjecture is more salient for the general reader than the (uninformative) names of the people who conjectured in the first place.

▲

brutal_chaos_ 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's loosely explained deep down in the article.

	▲	Biganon 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		...which is not the HN title, so parent's point still stands