Just in case you are really looking for an answer to the question "Why has no one noticed that I am correct about this?" (which I doubt, since you again dropped the whole "proof" here, hence again ignoring the norms of the site), it's (in particular; there are a lot of other reasons) because this single answer: https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/51920/58531 is 1000 times more convincing that all your vague blah-blah over these years (which people asked you multiple times to formalize and convert to standard terminology), and your "working" OS (which proves literally nothing, since "Testing can detect the presence of errors and not the absence of errors"), combined. Your "I addressed every point that @Dan Doel made in his answer" means absolutely nothing in the face of the machine-checked proof (since you, in fact, didn't address at all the most important point: the correct machine-checked proof).
As people told you multiple times, if you want anyone to take your claims seriously, write a machine-checked proof (in Coq, Agda or whatever). As per analogy in https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18491/i-believe-i-have-solved-a-famous-open-problem-how-do-i-convince-people-in-the-f/18570#18570 , your claim is stronger than "I invented the time machine" (I would say it's along the lines "I have a working prototype of Infinity Gauntlet").
As people told you multiple times, your claims would indicate that the foundation of math is contradictory. If you have any idea what it implies, you should understand that your proof must be extremely formal (meaning, exactly as formal as the machine-checked proof requires). Since you don't understand it, it's yet another flag that you have no idea what you are trying to prove.
- You lost all the trust. You already demonstrated more than enough of the cranky behavior, so I'm genuinely surprised that there are people trying to argue with you about anything. You got a lot of good feedback (in fact, the same feedback multiple times). So far you only demonstrated that your only criterion of correctness is whether the person's statement supports your "proof". The fact that you completely ignored Dan Doel's machine-checked proof speaks extremely negatively of your reaction to constructive feedback.
- Your inability to understand the norms of the sites (that were explained to you multiple times) and your spammy behavior (such as reposting the same thing again) raise further doubts about your comprehension ability. Since you can't comprehend very simple things that people explicitly told you multiple times, how can we expect you to comprehend anything in computer science?
- The only way to prove your correctness is to provide an argument that doesn't require the tiniest bit of trust. Namely, a machine-checked proof. Since you already spent 200 years working on this problem, you should be able to spend one more year learning Coq and converting your proof to Coq. The proof should have (see the Dan Doel proof for some ideas; you'll need to do a lot more):
- A definition of TM that exactly matches the standard definition
- A definition of the halting problem that exactly matches the standard formulation
- Only the axioms that anyone would consider absolutely trivial. Just to make it clear: "C is Turing equivalent" is not one of them.
- Your final proven statement must be "there exists a TM that solves the halting problem"
I guarantee that when you satisfy all of these conditions, then people would take you seriously. On the other hand, until you do this, you are a crank.
P.S. And, based on the discussion below, you are a confirmed crank, even worse than I ever suspected. I thought that you were avoiding writing machine-checked proofs because it's too much work (which it is, and you yourself are to blame), because you suspected that you have no chance to formalize your mess, or simply because who cares about the feedback you got? It was beyond my imagination that you would declare machine-checked proofs incorrect simply because they disagree with your idea (and, as far as I can tell, without having the slightest idea how they work).
So before doing anything else: seek medical attention. It's my genuine advice, no malice.
P.P.S.: Also, a bit about terminology (I, of course, have zero expectation that you would follow it, but at least I let you know).
- Stop saying "the fact that I proved/refuted, etc". This sounds simply laughable given that you are the only person who believes in its correctness
- Stop saying "I published a paper". We say this for results published in peer-reviewed conferences/journals. The wording we use for your case is "posted a preprint" if you plan to ever publish it, or "posted a paper" if you don't (and then certainly don't expect any recognition). Just to make it clear: when you say that you published a paper, you lie.