Original statement:
∀p. (Person(p) →
∃c. (Cat(c) ∧ Loves(p, c) ∧
∀r. (Robot(r) → ¬Loves(c, r))
)
)
Negation:
Ep. (Person(p) ∧
∀c. (Cat(c) ∧ Loves(p, c) ->
Er. (Robot(r) ∧ Loves(c, r))
)
)
Original statement:
∀p. (Person(p) →
∃c. (Cat(c) ∧ Loves(p, c) ∧
∀r. (Robot(r) → ¬Loves(c, r))
)
)
Negation:
Ep. (Person(p) ∧
∀c. (Cat(c) ∧ Loves(p, c) ->
Er. (Robot(r) ∧ Loves(c, r))
)
)
Copyright © 2021 JogjaFile Inc.
Yes. That is correct.
I would also add brackets around "$\operatorname{Cat}(c)\land\operatorname{Loves}(p, c)$", although that is just for clarity; it is not strictly necessary.
$$\neg~\forall p~.(\operatorname{Person}(p)\to\exists c~.(\operatorname{Cat}(c)\land\operatorname{Loves}(p,c)\land\forall r~.(\operatorname{Robot}(r)\to\neg\operatorname{Loves}(c,r))))\\[2ex]\Updownarrow\\[2ex]\exists p~.(\operatorname{Person}(p)\land\forall c~.((\operatorname{Cat}(c)\land\operatorname{Loves}(p,c))\to\exists r~.(\operatorname{Robot}(r)\land \operatorname{Loves}(c,r))))$$