Evaluate this alpha substitution $[(zx)/x] \, \lambda z.xyz$ I am having difficulty with the following problem: 
Calculate the result of this substitution, renaming the bound variables
as needed, so that substitution is defined
$[(zx)/x] \, \lambda z.xyz$
Attempt:
If I were to simply replace $x$ with $zx$ in this expression it would yield : 
$\lambda z.zxyz$ but I am not sure if this is correct. Any tips appreciated as I honestly don't even know what the question is asking because it seems to imply I should be renaming bound variables
 A: Short answer. 
No, the answer proposed here is wrong. Actually, $[(zx)/x]\, \lambda z.xyz = \lambda t.(zx)yt$, which is completely different from $\lambda t.(t(zx)y)$ because application is not commutative, unlike the usual product: in general, the term $xy$ is the application of $x$ to $y$ (where $x$ and $y$ are intended as two arbitrary functions), which is different from $yx$ i.e. the application of $y$ to $x$.
Anyway, you are right when you say that $[(zx)/x]\, \lambda z.xyz \neq \lambda z.zxyz$. Indeed, substitution in the $\lambda$-calculus is not a simple replacement of something with something else, because of the problem of the capture of variables, which I explain below.

(Very) Long answer. 
Substitution is a delicate operation in the $\lambda$-calculus.
Indeed, the $\lambda$-calculus is intended as a formal system for expressing computation based on abstraction and application using variable binding and substitution, where functions are taken as first class values:   every term in the $\lambda$-calculus represents a (computable) function. A naïve approach in the definition of substitution in the $\lambda$-calculus may change the meaning of the represented functions in a inconsistent way. 
In the syntax of the $\lambda$-calculus, the $\lambda$ is an operator binding a variable in a function. 
For instance, the term $\lambda x.x$ represents the identity function ($x \mapsto x$), the term $\lambda x. y$ represents the constant function ($x \mapsto y$, i.e. everything is mapped to $y$). Note that  the particular choice of a bound variable, in a $\lambda$, does not (usually) matter: for instance, the term $\lambda x . x$ is the same as the term $\lambda y. y$ because they both represents the identity function. Formally, terms in the $\lambda$-calculus are identified up to $\alpha$-equivalence, i.e. up to renaming of the bound variables. 
Now, consider the term $[x/y] \, \lambda x. y$. Morally, it represents the constant function $x \mapsto y$ (everything is mapped to $y$) where $y$ is replaced by $x$, that is, it represent the constant function $z \mapsto x$ (everything is mapped to $x$).
However, if we intended the substitution as a simple replacement, $[x/y] \, \lambda x. y$ would be $\lambda x. x$, i.e. the constant function, a completely different function from the intended one. 
The problem arises because the variable $x$ in the substitution $[x/y]$ has be captured by the binder $\lambda x$ in the term.
So, in order to define substitution in a consistent way, the problem of the capture of variable has to be avoided. 
The solution is defining substitution in a capture-avoiding way as follows: given the terms $t$ and $u$, the term $[u/x]\, t$ is obtained from $t$ by replacing the free (i.e. not bound by a $\lambda$) occurrences of $x$ in $t$ with $u$, provided that the bound variables of $t$ are not free in $u$; if this proviso is not fulfilled by $t$, then we work on a term $t'$ (instead of $t$) where this proviso holds: this is always possible thanks to $\alpha$-equivalence, i.e. by renaming the bound variables in $t$ (which does not change the meaning of $t$, as I explained before).
For example, in $[x/y] \, \lambda x. y$ the variable $x$ in the substitution is also a bound variable in the term $\lambda x. y$; then, instead of performing the replacement on $\lambda x. y$, we do it in the $\alpha$-equivalent term $\lambda z. y$ (or $\lambda w.y$, it is the same) and then we get $[x/y] \, \lambda x. y = \lambda z. x$ (or equivalently, $[x/y] \, \lambda x. y = \lambda w. x$).
Coming back to your question, in the term $[(zx)/x]\, \lambda z.xyz $, the term $zx$ in the substitution contains a free variable $z$ that is bound in $\lambda z.xyz $, so before performing the substitution we have to rename the term $\lambda z.xyz $ in a $\alpha$-equivalent way, say $\lambda w.xyw $ (or equivalently, $\lambda t.xyt $, if $t$ stands for a variable). Therefore, $[(zx)/x]\, \lambda z.xyz = \lambda w.(zx)yw $ (or equivalently, $[(zx)/x]\, \lambda z.xyz = \lambda t.(zx)yt $).
A: Ok, so I figured out what was wrong. The question is basically saying, in regular English, replace a free variable by another free variable that is the product of two free variables,
so the answer is 
$\lambda t.(t(zx)y)$
