Harmonix:
Well, that’s not really true. Removing an infinite subset from an infinite set can result in an infinite set, but not necessarily. For example, take the reals (an infinite set), remove all but the number zero (so we’re removing an infinite subset), but the result is the set {0}–a set consisting of just one element.
You’re absolutely right here–set 1 and 2 will be different sets, however, you seem to be missing the point we’re trying to make, and that is that alhtough the two sets are different, the sets will be the same size (cardinality).
For a very simple example, the sets {1,2,3} and {4,5,6} are completely different sets, but both are the same size (each consisting of three elements).
Similarly, take the reals, and remove the number zero. The resulting set is not the same as the reals (it’s missing zero!), but it is the same size (cardinality) as the reals! This is a feature unique to infinite sets–you can remove a finite number of elements, and the resulting set will have the same cardinality you started with! You can’t do this with finite sets. Intuitively, you can think of this as saying that infinite sets are so big, throwing out finitely many elements has no effect on the size of the set.
I believe you meant rational numbers. The set of irrational numbers is much bigger than the set of natural numbers.
Yeah, infinities exist (as in the cardinalities I was referring to above), but not in the sense you mention here. Neither of these limits exist–we say the limit is plus/minus infinity (depending on whether you approach zero from the right or left), but that’s really just a specific way of saying how the limits fail to exist. It’s just a shorthand way of saying that the function grows without bound as x approaches zero, and has nothing to do with the cardinalities of sets that I’ve been talking about.