What I've done is the following however I'm stuck on PvQ
∃x:X.PvQ |- (∃x:X.P) v (∃x:X.Q)
1) ∃x:X.PvQ hyp
2) PvQ ass
.
.
.
P=>P => I
Q=>P => I
P v E
P [x->x] law P = P[x->x]
∃x:X.P ∃ I
∃x:X.P v ∃x:X.Q v I
PvQ=>(∃x:X.P) v (∃x:X.Q) => I
∀x:X.PvQ=>(∃x:X.P)v(∃x:X.Q) ∀ I
(∃x:X.P) v (∃x:X.Q) ∃ E
Thanks once again for your help and tips!
If you think about this .... your proof basically attempts to derive $\exists x . P$ from $\exists x . (P \lor Q)$ .... does that follow? .... No!
Ok, so you need a different proof strategy.
Try this: after getting $P \lor Q$, try to get $\exists x \ P$ in the case of $P$, after which you can derive your conclusion with a $\lor Intro$. And in the case of $Q$, derive $\exists x \ Q$, after which again you can get your desired conclusion with $\lor Intro$. So, since in both cases you can get your conclusion, you can get your conclusion using $\lor \ Elim$, period.