I have attached a screen shot of the text. Since there is so much math in his question the font structure in this forum would do a bad job of displaying the text accurately.
Basically it is this. The formula shows the "ln" function in a superscript format however there is no letter attached to it. With the function standing alone in the superscript there is nothing to terminate it's superscript property. Our instincts tell us to put a Baseline Indicator after the stand alone superscript function to make the distinction to the reader that it is terminated as in print. If there is a better way let us know. The red text is the transcribers thoughts. The black text is what was in print.
I agree with the transcriber that a superscripted abbreviated function name that does not have an argument [letter, number, or expression following and paired with the function name and printed at the same level] and is followed by material on the base line should be followed by a baseline indicator.
In other words, a baseline indicator is appropriate following the "ln" in the superscript of the example included.
Thank you for your time and for the question.
FYI, I had someone who was competent at math look at this formula because I was suspicious of its validity since the Nemeth code seems to miss this situation so completely. It seems this is an issue because there is a misprint in the text and the (ln) should be accompanied by the number 2 to make this formula work correctly. This is also alluded to in the text that precedes the problem as well. We are unfortunately confined to follow the print and feel very bad for this student. This book seems to contain many such errors.