I have this sentence, and want to put it in Prenex form:
$$ \lnot(( \exists y)( \forall z) Q(y,z)) $$
Is it this?:
$$ ( \forall y)( \exists z) \lnot Q(y,z) $$
I have this sentence, and want to put it in Prenex form:
$$ \lnot(( \exists y)( \forall z) Q(y,z)) $$
Is it this?:
$$ ( \forall y)( \exists z) \lnot Q(y,z) $$
Yes ... basically the relevant rule is:
So pushing inwards, $\neg\forall x\varphi$ is equivalent to $\exists x\neg\varphi$. Pulling outwards $\forall x\neg\varphi$ is equivalent to $\neg\exists x\varphi$.
That's because $\forall$ and $\neg\exists\neg$ come to the same: so $\neg\forall x\varphi$ is equivalent to $\neg\neg\exists x\neg\varphi$ is equivalent to $\exists x\neg\varphi$. Similarly for $\exists$ and $\neg\forall\neg$, and so on (all classically, of course).
So $\lnot\exists y\forall z Qyz$ is equivalent to $\forall y\neg\forall z Qyz$ is equivalent to $\forall y\exists z\neg Qyz$
[Minor point. Your notation is unnecessarily over-bracketed according to most modern versions of FOL syntax.]