Proof. The minimum value is 53n.
On one hand, taking x1=x2=⋯=xn=1, we have
k=1∑n1+xk+1+xk+12+xk+13+xk+141+xk2+xk4=53n.
On the other hand, by the AM-GM inequality, for any 1≤k≤n, we have xk2+xk4≥2xk3 and 1+xk2≥2xk. Noting that 1+xk4≥xk+xk3 (since (xk−1)2(xk2+xk+1)≥0), it follows that 2(1+xk2+xk4)≥3(xk+xk3). Thus, 5(1+xk2+xk4)≥3(1+xk+xk2+xk3+xk4), which implies
1+xk+xk2+xk3+xk41+xk2+xk4≥53.
By the rearrangement inequality (the sum of products in any order is greater than or equal to the sum in reverse order),
k=1∑n1+xk+1+xk+12+xk+13+xk+141+xk2+xk4≥k=1∑n1+xk+xk2+xk3+xk41+xk2+xk4≥53n.
(2) The maximum value is n4+n2+n−1+n5−1n−1.
On one hand, taking x1=n and x2=x3=⋯=xn=0, we have
k=1∑n1+xk+1+xk+12+xk+13+xk+141+xk2+xk4=n4+n2+n−1+n5−1n−1.
On the other hand, for any 1≤k≤n, let ak=1+xk2+xk4 and bk=1+xk+xk2+xk3+xk4, with bn+1=b1. Since ak≥1 and bk+11≤1, it follows that (ak−1)(bk+11−1)≤0, and thus
bk+1ak≤ak+bk+11−1.
Therefore,
k=1∑nbk+1ak≤k=1∑nak+k=1∑nbk+11−n.
Let f(x)=1+x2+x4 for x≥0, and g(x)=1+x+x2+x3+x41 for x≥0. It is clear that f(x) is convex on [0,+∞).
We now prove that g(x) is also convex on [0,+∞). Indeed,
g′(x)g′′(x)=(x5−1)2−4x5+5x4−1,=(x5−1)410(x5−1)x3(x−1)2(2x2+x+2)(x2−1)=(1+x+x2+x3+x4)210x3(x+1)(2x2+x+2)≥0.
It is well-known that if φ(x) is convex, then for any a,b≥0,
φ(a)+φ(b)≤φ(a+b)+φ(0).
Applying this inequality repeatedly, we obtain
≤≤=k=1∑nak+k=1∑nbk+11−nk=1∑nf(xk)+k=1∑ng(xk)−nf(k=1∑nxk)+g(k=1∑nxk)+(n−1)(f(0)+g(0))−nn4+n2+n−1+n5−1n−1.