I posted the Turing Halting Problem Wikipedia page. It describes a theorem, not a conjecture that I need to prove, which shows the original poster's claim is contradicted by established facts.
Let me put it this way. If I say, "There are an infinity of primes," will you reply, saying, "I disagree"? That position would be equally appropriate -- that is to say, not appropriate at all.
Am I obliged to prove the infinity of primes by generating an infinity of candidate integers and prove that some of them are prime? No, and by the same token, I'm not obliged to reply to your naive demands and teach you why the Halting Problem falsifies the claim made by the original poster. That is not my responsibility, it is yours.
In mathematics, some things are conjectures -- the Millennium Challenge problems, for example. Others are theorems, meaning established truths, beyond dispute. Turing's Halting problem is a theorem.
Here is another authoritative reference to the fact I originally posted: "Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?" from the Oxford University Press -- https://academic.oup.com/logcom/article/36/1/exaf075/8417148 .
The question in the title is rhetorical, as you will discover if you read and understand the article I just linked.
> It is now your opportunity to make a mathematical claim, of which proof by assertion this paper should apply because it proves something in general is not.
How many more mathematical literature references will you require before you realize I have already met any burden of proof? I could post the entire technical proof here, but (a) the editors of this forum would kick me out, and (b) you would still refuse to accept the evidence.
How do I know this? Because you keep refusing to learn what you need to know to engage in this conversation.
There are an infinity of primes -- your turn.