The answer to what I'd say if this were about primes and a program which blocks outputting them in pure mathematics, despite there being infinitely many, would be (using a similar type of argument I gave early on for the current discussion):
Define:
A_n = n\*n
n ∈ Z_>=2
∴
A_n ∉ ℙ ⇒ ∀n
∴
|ℙ| = ∞ ∧ ∀n ∈ ℤ_>=2, A_n ∈ ℕ ∖ ℙ
Q.E.D.
(Apologies for the formatting, HN does not allow latex)
The thing blocking me from being able to do the same here is I defined a similarly styled argument about it being possible to construct a program (glad to give it in pure math if tou'd like) which blocks all non-halting programs by only allowing ones showable to be halting (n.b. much as the above example with primes, this result did not require listing every non-halting program and so does not disagree with the general halting problem) and you said Turing's paper contains some definition of non-triviality which says why that cannot be and then refuse to say what and where in this paper you believe this definition of non-triviality to be even though I could find no such thing.
If you said Euclid showed the above proof on primes does not apply because he gave some definition of non-triviality, telling me it's somewhere in his book Elements, and I said book IX proposition 20 does not say anything like that, so you say "it's on Wikipedia"... you could see why I have doubts you have any mathematical claim to produce defining said definition. At the very least, you could see how I'd still be awaiting to hear the actual mathematics you're using.
The thing blocking me from being able to do the same here is I defined a similarly styled argument about it being possible to construct a program (glad to give it in pure math if tou'd like) which blocks all non-halting programs by only allowing ones showable to be halting (n.b. much as the above example with primes, this result did not require listing every non-halting program and so does not disagree with the general halting problem) and you said Turing's paper contains some definition of non-triviality which says why that cannot be and then refuse to say what and where in this paper you believe this definition of non-triviality to be even though I could find no such thing.
If you said Euclid showed the above proof on primes does not apply because he gave some definition of non-triviality, telling me it's somewhere in his book Elements, and I said book IX proposition 20 does not say anything like that, so you say "it's on Wikipedia"... you could see why I have doubts you have any mathematical claim to produce defining said definition. At the very least, you could see how I'd still be awaiting to hear the actual mathematics you're using.