What does it mean to logically imply another predicate? Consider the following predicate formulas.

$F1: \forall x \exists y ( P(x) \to Q(y) ).$

$F2: \exists x \forall y ( P(x) \to Q(y) ).$

$F3: \forall x P(x) \to \exists y Q(y).$

$F4: \exists x P(x) \to \forall y Q(y).$

Answer the following questions with brief justification.

(a) Does $F1$ logically imply $F2$?

(b) Does $F1$ logically imply $F3$?

(c) Does $F1$ logically imply $F4$?

(d) Does $F2$ logically imply $F1$?

(e) Does $F2$ logically imply $F3$?

(f) Does $F2$ logically imply $F4$?

(g) Does $F3$ logically imply $F1$?

(h) Does $F3$ logically imply $F2$?

(i) Does $F3$ logically imply $F4$?

(j) Does $F4$ logically imply $F1$?

(k) Does $F4$ logically imply $F2$?

(l) Does $F4$ logically imply $F3$?




Logically implies really confuses me. Attempt:

Writing it in English first:

F1: We have that $x$ never satisfies $P$ or there is a $y$ that satisfies $Q$

F2: For some $x$ $P$ isn't satisfied, or $y$ always satisfies $Q$

F3: Some $x$ doesn't satisfy $P$ or some $y$ satisfies $Q$

F4: $x$ never satisfies $P$ or $y$ always satisfies Q

By definition of logically implies: A formula $F$ logically implies a formula $F'$ iff every interpretation that satisfies $F$ satisfies $F'$

So:

(a) So for $F1$ $x$ never satisfies $P$ meaning it'll always be true whereas some $x$ can satisfy P in $F2$, thus this doesn't logically imply.

(b) ... yeah I don't know how to explain any of this - any assistance even tips are appreciated I'm stumped

Apparently $b$ is true I don't get it though. 

according to $F1$, $x$ never satisfies $P$ and by prepositional logic of $p \to q$ is not p or q. 

then $F1$ is always true whereas $F3$ there can exist a P that satisfies Q and some y that doesn't satisfy Q so every interpretation doesn't satisfy? I'm understanding this poorly.
$F_1$ says for all $x$, there exists a y such that $P(x)$ implies $Q(y)$.

$F_2$ says for there exists a $x$, for all $y$ such that $P(x)$ implies $Q(y)$.

$F_3$ says that for all $x$, if $P(x)$ holds, then there exists a $y$ such that $Q(y)$.

$F_4$ says that there exists a $x$, such that if $P(x)$, then for all $y$, $Q(y)$ holds.

The first one means that for all values of $x$, there exists some value of y such that the $P(x)$ implies $Q(y)$. 

The second one says that there exists a common $x$ for all $y$ such that $P(x)$ implies $Q(y)$. 

Both of them aren't the same, which is what you have pointed out too and you can solve the rest of them in the same way.

Also, a good way would be to some concrete example and see if it holds or not. It makes the intuition a bit easier. 

EDIT: If you want more help with logical implications, there's a book called How To Prove It by Daniel Velleman whose first two chapters deal with logic, which is a good read.