Apparently some folks are motivated to strive towards those statuses. Not quite my cup of tea, but I wouldn't discourage them or say those goals are flatly impossible.
Or do you mean just maybe understand the general essence of the paper's title, and understand major contributions after spending some time reading the paper?
If the former, well... yes. That's probably true for almost all significant research, especially in mathematics.
If the latter, I think you're probably wrong. And that's not to trivialize the work presented in the paper; if anything, the contrary -- the paper's actually quite well-written.
Probably, and this is just a guess, neither Simons or Sullivan claim they could've written the paper alone. And it's certainly impossible to write essentially the same paper without plagiarizing. So probably there are either zero or two people who meet the "could've written this paper" criteria.
So, why didn't you just say "there are more than zero/two billionaires who read HN"? Seems less round-about.