Here is the definition of measurable function from Stein and Shakarchi's Real Analysis: Measure Theory, Integration, and Hilbert Spaces (p.28):
Talking about [-∞,a] for all a seems like [-∞,∞]. So one would think why not simply say $f^{-1}([-∞,∞])$ (which is actually E) is measurable (and this would make a useless definition). Could you please provide examples showing how these two definitions differ?
Does the range of f need to be measurable? If not, please give me an example.
What is a neat example of a non-measurable function (whose domain is measurable)?
Edit: I think this would make a better definition. However it's apparently limited to finite valued functions.



1.
Saying that some expression $p(a)$ that depends on $a$ is true "for all $a$" mean, in mathematics, the following:
Therefore, the statement
is the statement:
This is not the same as saying that $f^{-1}([\infty, \infty])$ is measurable. The statement says that $f$ is measurable if $f^{-1}([-\infty, 0))$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, 2))$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, 3242))$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, \sqrt2)$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, \pi))$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, e))$ is measurable and $f^{-1}([-\infty, 2348+\frac{\sqrt[e]{\pi})}{\ln(398453)})$ is measurable and so on and so on.
2.
The definition does not demand that the range of $f$ is measurable.
3.
An example of a non-measurable function would be any indicator function of a non-measurable set.