1.17 THEOREM
Let $f: X \to [0, \infty)$ be measurable. There exist simple measurable functions $s_n$ on $X$ such that
(a) $0 \le s_1 \le s_2 \le \dots \le f.$
(b) $s_n(x) \to f(x)$ as $n \to \infty \forall x$
PROOF Put $\delta_n = 2^{-n}$. To each positive integer $n$ and each real number $t$ corresponds a unique integer $k = k_n(t)$ that satisfies $k \delta_n \le t < (k + 1) \delta_n$. Define
$ \phi_n(t)= \begin{cases} k_n(t) \delta_n \space \space \text{if} \space 0 \le t <n \\ n \space \space \text{if} \space n \le t < \infty \\ \end{cases} $
Each $\phi_n$ is then a Borel function on $[0,\infty)$,
$t~\delta_n< \phi_n(t)\le t \space \space \space \space \text{if} \space \space 0 \le t <n$
$0 \le \phi_1(t) \le \phi_2(t) \le \dots \le t$ and $\phi_n(t) \to t$ as $n \to \infty$ It follows that the functions
$s_n = \phi_n (f)$
satisfy (a) and (b); they are measurable, by Theorem 1.12(d). $\square$
$\textbf{Question}$: Why can't we set $\phi_n(t)= n$ ? What would we lose?
$0 \le \phi_1(t) \le \phi_2(t) \le \dots \le t$ is only true for $t<n$. I just don't see what we gain by having $k_n(t) \delta_n \space \space \text{if} \space 0 \le t <n $