When I was taking the probability class myself, I remember my professor give us a standard counter example of central limit theorem:
Let $X_{i}\sim X$ be $i.i.d$ random variables. Let $E(X)=0, Var(X)=1$. Now by central limit theorem we have:
$$ \sqrt{n}\overline{X}\rightarrow^{d} N(0,1) $$
The counter example begins by assuming we can multiply $\sqrt{n}$ on both sides like a constant. Then we trivially have
$$ \sum^{n}_{i=1}X_{i}\sim^{d} N(0,n) $$ which is now nonsense.
Of course the problem is both left and right hand side are changing, and claiming something converge to $N(0,n)$ does not make sense. In general one needs something like Slutsky's theorem. My question is:
1) From pedagogical point of view, is this still a good motivation for central limit theorem, that the shape of $\sum^{n}_{i=1}X_{i}$ is approximately a (rescaled) normal?
2) For the best way to make sense of this statement, I am considering the following: Let $[A,B]\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ be any non-degenerate interval, then $$\forall \epsilon,\exists N, \forall n>N,|P(\sum^{n}_{i}X_{i}\in [A,B])-P(N(0,n)\in [A,B])|\le \epsilon$$ I feel this might be a good re-framing of convergence in distribution. But this is really appropriate?
I ask because my primary research field is not probability and I have never seen anyone approaching central limit theorem heuristically this way.