Did the commenter named julianpenrod get confused about causality (the article said "the weak version would follow if the strong were true"; he replied that it is "not correct in stating that, if the weak conjecture is proved, then the strong conjecture is prove[d]") or did the article get edited after he commented?
It's hard to say. In either case, the result makes julianpenrod look rather silly. More online publications should, as the New York Times does, note all corrections to an article since its original appearance in a paragraph at the bottom.
