This has to be the stupidest conversation ever.
First, there is no such thing as a 'full parabola'. Parabolas are, by definition, infinite. Ipso facto, every parabolic curve is neither complete nor incomplete, for it is complete unto itself, but can never contain every bit of the parabola from which it was taken.
Second, parabolas are widely used for estimating curves of all sorts. This is because given three points on any curve, a parabolic formula can be derived to closely follow curving sections. This model works for curves that have gentle sweeps and don't go from concave to convex. In something like a cue butt or shaft, I expect one could use fewer than three parabolic functions for a model and be within 5% of the actual shape.
All of you geometry dropouts can exit this conversation now, one needs to have at least gotten through differential and integral calculus to further participate.
First, there is no such thing as a 'full parabola'. Parabolas are, by definition, infinite. Ipso facto, every parabolic curve is neither complete nor incomplete, for it is complete unto itself, but can never contain every bit of the parabola from which it was taken.
Second, parabolas are widely used for estimating curves of all sorts. This is because given three points on any curve, a parabolic formula can be derived to closely follow curving sections. This model works for curves that have gentle sweeps and don't go from concave to convex. In something like a cue butt or shaft, I expect one could use fewer than three parabolic functions for a model and be within 5% of the actual shape.
All of you geometry dropouts can exit this conversation now, one needs to have at least gotten through differential and integral calculus to further participate.