I tried to prove in negative way that there is computability reduction HP $\le$ $\Sigma$* and accept contradiction because of HP $\in$ RE and $\Sigma$* $\in$ R but it feels that is not strong argument.
There is a more solid way to prove it?
Computer Science Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, researchers and practitioners of computer science. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI tried to prove in negative way that there is computability reduction HP $\le$ $\Sigma$* and accept contradiction because of HP $\in$ RE and $\Sigma$* $\in$ R but it feels that is not strong argument.
There is a more solid way to prove it?
Let us actually prove more: If $L$ is a language and $L \not\in \mathsf{R}$, then $L \not\le_\mathrm{T} L'$ for any $L' \in \mathsf{R}$. (Here, $\le_\mathrm{T}$ indicates a Turing reduction; this is synonymous with your notion of a "computability" reduction.) In other words, $\mathsf{R}$ is closed under Turing reductions.
Suppose towards a contradiction that such a reduction exists and is computed by a Turing machine $M$. Furthermore, let $M'$ be a decider for $L'$. Then there is a Turing machine which solves $L$, namely by directly simulating $M$, answering all of its oracle queries by simulating $M'$ on them, and, at the end, answering what $M$ does. This contradicts $L \not\in \textsf{R}$.
The case of the halting problem follows from it not being in $\mathsf{R}$ (since it is not even in $\mathsf{RE}$) and, naturally, $\Sigma^\ast \in \mathsf{R}$.
An aside: If you find the idea of classes closed under Turing reductions interesting, I suggest you look up the computation-theoretical notion of Turing degree. $\mathsf{R}$ would be the "base case" (i.e., degree zero) in that context.