A good mathematician should be good in forex.

[Dua Yong Rew]

I would say more likely but not definitely

[okwh]

should be :  A good forex trader should be good in math.

[gbemi1 AJAYI]

DxdCn:

should be :  A good forex trader should be good in math.

this is also false

[Ronnie Mansolillo]

why should be good? math is the only factor that move prices or does price move on math calculations?

[Robert Mihali]

DxdCn:

should be :  A good forex trader should be good in math.

I don't agree at all with this statement. I'm studying math and I don't think that to be good in trading implies immediately that you are good in math. 

Math is much more than finance 

[Simon Gniadkowski]

DxdCn:

should be :  A good forex trader should be good in math.

Did you mean "needs to be" ?  and at what level ?  do you mean 2nd order differential equations ?  or be able to calculate a percentage ?

[Tonny Obare]

False.

[Rinor Memeti]

Why that? For calculating i have my computer :D

[Erdem]

no one needs advanced mathematics here, intermediate statistics at most!

it is a stupid idea (sorry), I had made many researches for my ms thesis about financial data, gone deep (hilbert spaces, fourier and wavelet transforms..., difusion, stochastic differential equations... and even (dont lough) relativistic aproaches). Result is redicilous, it is a lie, a big LIE, only true for unrealistic scientists.

They publish articles on mathematical finance, look at them. Only few tells the truth about this dream (like Engle). Many tells about only theories which relies on failed axioms (simple examples: normality, continiuty). All of them results useless methods which only satisfies dreamers.

I wander about the "true" votes, tell us why? mathematically? or cut the b.s.

[Alain Verleyen]

erdogenes:

no one needs advanced mathematics here, intermediate statistics at most!

it is a stupid idea (sorry), I had made many researches for my ms thesis about financial data, gone deep (hilbert spaces, fourier and wavelet transforms..., difusion, stochastic differential equations... and even (dont lough) relativistic aproaches). Result is redicilous, it is a lie, a big LIE, only true for unrealistic scientists.

They publish articles on mathematical finance, look at them. Only few tells the truth about this dream (like Engle). Many tells about only theories which relies on failed axioms (simple examples: normality, continiuty). All of them results useless methods which only satisfies dreamers.

I wander about the "true" votes, tell us why? mathematically? or cut the b.s.

It's very interesting. Is your thesis available publicly ?

It would be a good idea for you to publish an article on this site.