Is a circle a form?

Nobody has ever seen a circle. Yet we all say "that is a circle" and nod in agreement. But when we say that the top of a bottle is a circle, we see the bottle top, not really the circle. The recognition of a circle is impermanent. We are taught to recognize a circle in school and are given its name as "circle". Nobody has ever drawn a circle. We can only draw a rough form that is recognized as a "circle" but is actually not a circle. And it's not a circle because circles are made of points with no width, so a drawing of a circle can never be the circle we recognize. So then we ask, "What is a circle?" And in response comes the chorus, "A circle is a form". Except that the Buddha says: > [SN22.55:3.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato#sn22.55:3.1) : They don’t truly understand form—which is impermanent—as impermanent. So if a circle is a form, it must be impermanent. But wait. How can this be? Beyond our deaths and the forgetting of the circle, others will be born who will be taught to recognize a circle as "circulo" or "Kreis" or whatever. And our children and their children will agree that these words define the same form. Is a circle a form and if so, how can we understand what the Buddha means when he says that form is impermanent?