Why the following statement is correct $\color{blue}{[\forall x P(x) \lor \forall x Q(x) ] \Rightarrow \forall x[P(x) \lor Q(x) ]}$ ? An explaination is given here, but I could not understand it completely.
Explanation says : let $P(x)$ mean x is rich and $Q(x)$ mean x is happy, then LHS says everyone is rich or everyone is happy, and RHS says everyone is rich or happy. Thus if LHS is true, then RHS is certainly true. However on RHS it can happen that two people are rich but the third is not rich but happy. In that case LHS is not true while RHS is true. Thus RHS does not necessarily imply LHS.
And What can be said about the statement $\color{blue}{[\forall x P(x) \lor \forall x Q(x) ] \Leftrightarrow \forall x[P(x) \lor Q(x) ]}$ and
statement $\color{blue}{\forall x[P(x) \lor Q(x) ] \Rightarrow [\forall x P(x) \lor \forall x Q(x) ] }$ ?
$\color{blue}{[\,\forall x~P(x) \lor \forall x~Q(x)\;] \implies \forall x~[P(x) \lor Q(x) ]}$
"If either everything is P, or everything is Q, then everything is either P or Q."
Is it not clear that is at least one of the universals on the LHS holds then that on the RHS will hold? Whatever P,Q mean.
If everything is P then everything is P or Q, elseif everything is Q, then everything is P or Q. So, in either case, everything is P or Q.
Well, $\color{blue}{[\,\forall x~P(x) \lor \forall x~Q(x)\;] \impliedby\forall x~[P(x) \lor Q(x) ]}$ does not necessarily hold.
"If everything is either P or Q, then either everything is P, or everything is Q."
It is not necessary that if the RHS holds then one of the universal on the LHS will.