I am reading "A First Course in Analysis vol.3" written by Kazuo Matsuzaka.
First, he proves $\lvert X \rvert < \lvert \mathcal{P}(X) \rvert$ for any set $X$.
Next, he proves $\lvert \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{Z}^{+}) \rvert \leq \lvert \mathbb{R} \rvert$.
Then, he concludes that $\lvert \mathbb{Z}^{+} \rvert < \lvert \mathbb{R} \rvert$ because $\lvert \mathbb{Z}^{+} \rvert < \lvert \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{Z}^{+}) \rvert$ and $\lvert \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{Z}^{+}) \rvert \leq \lvert \mathbb{R} \rvert$.
But I cannot understand why $\lvert \mathbb{Z}^{+} \rvert < \lvert \mathbb{R} \rvert$ holds.
Generalising slightly: for arbitrary sets $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, to say that $|X| < |Y| \le |Z|$ means that there are injections $f : X \to Y$ and $g : Y \to Z$ but there is no injection $Y \to X$. Let's prove that this implies that $|X| < |Z|$.
To deduce that $|X| \le |Z|$, note that $g \circ f : X \to Z$ is injective.
To finally deduce that $|X| < |Z|$, suppose there were an injection $h : Z \to X$. Then the composite $h \circ g : Y \to X$ would be injective, contradicting the assumption that $|X| < |Y|$. So indeed we have $|X|<|Z|$.
So here, let $X=\mathbb{Z}^+$, $Y=\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{Z}^+)$ and $Z=\mathbb{R}$ and apply the above result.