# Nonacceptance by StackExchange site of Mathematica TeXForm employing \unicode

When I apply the Mathematica command TeXForm to

DifferenceRoot[
Function[{\[FormalY], \[FormalN]}, {9 (1 + \[FormalN])^2 \
\[FormalY][\[FormalN]] -
60 (3 + 2 \[FormalN])^2 \[FormalY][
1 + \[FormalN]] + (3840 + 4096 \[FormalN] +
1024 \[FormalN]^2) \[FormalY][2 + \[FormalN]] ==
0, \[FormalY][1] == -(9/64), \[FormalY][2] == -(81/4096)}]][bb]


I obtained

\text{DifferenceRoot}\left[\{\unicode{f818},\unicode{f80d}\}\unicode{f4a1}\left\{\left(10
24 \unicode{f80d}^2+4096 \unicode{f80d}+3840\right) \unicode{f818}(\unicode{f80d}+2)+9
(\unicode{f80d}+1)^2 \unicode{f818}(\unicode{f80d})-60 (2 \unicode{f80d}+3)^2
\unicode{f818}(\unicode{f80d}+1)=0,\unicode{f818}(1)=-\frac{9}{64},\unicode{f818}(2)=-
\frac{81}{4096}\right\}\right][\text{bb}]


which was not accepted as the input to  in my question https://mathoverflow.net/questions/322958/compute-the-two-fold-partial-integral-where-the-three-fold-full-integral-is-kno/323011#323011

because the "Argument to unicode must be a number".

I had posed this question first on the TeXstackexchange https://tex.stackexchange.com/posts/474568/edit and was redirected here, although a number of technical responses was given.

• Note that the unicode points (U+f818 etc..) are in a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas, which means that their interpretation is application-specific and may mean different things to different applications. Feb 12, 2019 at 20:58
• I do not believe that this TeX code is valid. \unicode is not defined by default and I was unable to find any package that would define it in such a way that Mathematica's output would get compiled. Feb 12, 2019 at 20:59
• So, Szabolics is this a shortcoming of the TeXForm command? Anyway around it? Is this a bug that should be reported? Feb 12, 2019 at 21:03
• Then there's the much bigger problem that Brett mentioned. The characters you are interested in are private-use, so they would only work with the Mathematica fonts anyway. I think that TeXForm is long overdue for an update and it should be able to produce more reasonable TeX code for many of these characters. Not even the new Association delimiters are supported, introduced in version 10.0 I think TeXForm stopped getting updates way before then ... Feb 12, 2019 at 21:12