What is the difference between $\forall x [ (\exists y Pxy) \longrightarrow \phi ]$ and $\forall x \exists y [Pxy \longrightarrow \phi]$?

Question

Suppose $Pxy$ is a $2$-ary predicate and $\phi$ is just some fixed arbitrary predicate form.

1. $\forall x [ (\exists y Pxy) \longrightarrow \phi ]$

2. $\forall x \exists y [Pxy \longrightarrow \phi]$

Is the only difference between 1. and 2. in the case where $\exists y$ is not true? i.e. We may be in an interpretation $\mathcal{I}$ where the universe/domain of discourse may be empty, so does that then make 1. true and 2. false?

So it seems to me that if we restrict ourselves to interpretations $\mathcal{I}$ whose domain of discourse is not empty then 1. and 2. are logically equivalent$^1$.

---

Remarks: $^1$I'm thinking of the interpretations in the context of first-order logic, but what about second-order logic or other higher orders of logic? (Though I have not studied anything beyond first order logic, but maybe someone can say something about this? But this probably is another question in its own right)

Answer 1

Hint

The two are not equivalent.

Consider an interpretation with domain $\mathbb N$ and let $\phi := (0=1)$ (or any other formulas which is False).

Then interpret $Pxy$ with $x < y$.

In this interpretation, 1. will be $∀x[∃y(x < y) ⟶ (0=1)]$, which is False, while 2. is $∀x∃y[(x < y) ⟶ (0=1)]$, which is True.