Evaluate L = lim as x to +0 x^(1/ln (1-e^-x))
Evaluate $\displaystyle L = \lim_{x\to+0}x^{\,1/\ln\left(1-e^{-x}\right)}$.
Explanation of Method
Numerator and denominator are the same logarithm to leading order.
Step 1: Take the natural logarithm
As $x\to+0$ the base tends to $0$ and $\ln\bigl(1-e^{-x}\bigr)\to-\infty$, so the exponent tends to $0$: the form is $0^{0}$. Write $L = e^{I}$ with
\[ I = \lim_{x\to+0}\frac{\ln x}{\ln\bigl(1-e^{-x}\bigr)}. \]
Step 2: Expand the denominator
Since $1-e^{-x} = \dfrac{e^{x}-1}{e^{x}}$, and $e^{x}-1 = x+\dfrac{x^{2}}{2}+O(x^{3})$, \[1-e^{-x} = \frac{x+\dfrac{x^{2}}{2}+O\!\left(x^{3}\right)}{1+x+O\!\left(x^{2}\right)} = x\cdot\frac{1+\dfrac{x}{2}+O\!\left(x^{2}\right)}{1+x+O\!\left(x^{2}\right)}.\]
Taking logarithms and using $\ln(1+u) = u+O(u^{2})$: \[\ln\bigl(1-e^{-x}\bigr) = \ln x+\frac{x}{2}-x+O\!\left(x^{2}\right) = \ln x-\frac{x}{2}+O\!\left(x^{2}\right). \tag{1}\]
Step 3: Form the ratio
Dividing numerator and denominator by $\ln x$: \[I = \lim_{x\to+0}\frac{\ln x}{\ln x-\dfrac{x}{2}+O\!\left(x^{2}\right)} = \lim_{x\to+0}\frac{1}{1-\dfrac{x}{2\ln x}+O\!\left(\dfrac{x^{2}}{\ln x}\right)}. \tag{2}\]
Here $\dfrac{x}{\ln x}\to0$, because $x\to0$ while $|\ln x|\to\infty$, so every correction disappears: \[I = \frac{1}{1-0} = 1. \tag{3}\]
Step 4: Recover $L$
\[ L = e^{I} = e. \]
Step 5: Verification
\[1-e^{-x}\sim x \;\Longrightarrow\; \frac{\ln x}{\ln\bigl(1-e^{-x}\bigr)}\sim\frac{\ln x}{\ln x} = 1 \;\;\checkmark\]
\[x = 0.01:\ 2.7153377; \qquad x = 0.001:\ 2.7180851; \qquad x = 10^{-6}:\ 2.7182817 \;\;\checkmark\]
\[\text{The relative gap behaves like } \frac{x}{2\ln x}:\ \text{at } x = 0.01,\ -1.1\cdot10^{-3} \;\;\checkmark\]
Result
Final answer:
\[\boxed{\,L = e \approx 2.7182818\,}\]
Remark
Remark. The exponent $\dfrac{1}{\ln(\cdot)}$ is again the detector of Problem 408: a base behaving like $x^{k}$ gives $e^{k}$. Here the base is $x$ itself and the logarithm in the exponent belongs to a quantity equivalent to $x$, so the two logarithms cancel to first order and the answer is $e^{1}$. The correction $-\tfrac{x}{2}$ in (1) never matters, because it is compared with a quantity that grows without bound.