Negated Existential Quantifier of a conjunction Here I have the statement that:
$\neg (\exists x)(P(x)\land Q(x))$
I must simplify it to find an equivalent statement. Here's my answer:
$(\forall x)\neg(P(x)\land Q(x)) \equiv (\forall x)(\neg P(x) \lor \neg Q(x))$ 
However, I'm being corrected that this doesn't work because we changed the existential quantifier to a universal quantifier thus the answer should be:
$(\forall x)\neg(P(x)\to Q(x))$
Can someone explain why one may think this is the correct answer? I don't quite understand the reasoning for this. I thought that the law of quantifiers allowed me to reduce it to:
$(\forall x)\neg(P(x)\land Q(x)) \equiv (\forall x)(\neg P(x) \lor \neg Q(x))$ 
Thanks for the help, sorry I couldn't explain the other person's logic. Is my answer wrong? Is their answer wrong? Are they both right? 
 A: Well, indeed, you have correctly applied quantifier duality and deMorgan's Law. 
After that you may also the apply Conditional Equivalence (aka Implication Equivalence).   Which is that: $(\neg p\vee r)$ and $(p\to r)$ are equivalent for any statements $p,r$ $
\tiny\text{(in classical logic)}$.
$$\begin{align}&\neg(\exists x)~(P(x)\wedge Q(x))\\&(\forall x)~\neg(P(x)\wedge Q(x))&&\raise{2ex}\text{Existential/Universal Duality}\\&(\forall x)~(\neg P(x)\vee\neg Q(x))&&\raise{2ex}\text{DeMorgan's Rule}\\&(\forall x)~(P(x)\to\neg Q(x))&&\raise{2ex}\text{Conditional Equivalence}\end{align}$$
All these statements are considered equivalent.
The last is preferred only because it has the familiar form of "All $P$ are not $Q$," which is the natural language negation of "Some $P$ is $Q$."
That is all.

PS: Do note, however, that is not what you wrote. The negation is only on the consequent ($Q$) not the whole conditional.
A: You are correct
$$¬(∃x)(P(x)∧Q(x))\equiv\forall x(\neg P(x)\lor\neg Q(x))\not\equiv(∀x)¬(P(x)→Q(x))$$
In short it's simply because: $$\neg(\forall x,P(x))\equiv\exists x,\neg P(x)$$
For the very same reason, we can change $P(x)$ with $P(x)\land Q(x)$, then apply De Morgan's law, that will give us what you got.
We can also show this with a natural deduction proof:
$\def\fitch#1#2{\quad\begin{array}{|l}#1\\\hline#2\end{array}}$
$$\fitch{~~
1.~\neg\exists x(P(x)\land Q(x))}{\fitch{~~
2.~\boxed{a}}{\fitch{~~
3.~P(a)\land Q(a)}{~~
4.~\exists x(P(x)\land Q(x))\hspace{22ex}{\exists}~\textsf{Intro}~3\\~~
5.~\bot\hspace{36.5ex}{\bot}~\textsf{Intro}~1,4}\\~~
6.~\neg(P(a)\land Q(a))\hspace{26.4ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Intro}~3-5\\\fitch{~~
7.~\neg(\neg P(a)\lor\neg Q(a))}{\fitch{~~
8.~\neg P(a)}{~~
9.~\neg P(a)\lor Q(a)\hspace{21ex}{\lor}~\textsf{Intro}~8\\~~
10.~\bot\hspace{31.6ex}{\bot}~\textsf{Intro}~7,9}\\~~
11.~\neg\neg P(a)\hspace{29.3ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Intro}~8-10\\\fitch{~~
12.~Q(a)}{~~
13.~P(a)\hspace{29ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Elim}~11\\\fitch{~~
14.~\neg(\neg P(a)\lor\neg Q(a))}{~~
15.~P(a)\land Q(a)\hspace{18ex}{\land}~\textsf{Intro}~12,13\\~~
16.~\bot\hspace{28ex}{\bot}~\textsf{Intro}~6,15}\\~~
17.~\neg\neg(\neg P(a)\lor Q(a))\hspace{14.7ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Intro}~14-16\\~~
18.~\bot\hspace{31.3ex}{\bot}~\textsf{Intro}~7,17}\\~~
19.~\neg Q(a)\hspace{30.5ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Intro}~12-18\\~~
20.~\neg P(a)\lor\neg Q(a)\hspace{21.6ex}{\lor}~\textsf{Intro}~19\\~~
21.~\bot\hspace{35ex}{\bot}~\textsf{Intro}~7,20}\\~~
22.~\neg P(a)\lor\neg Q(a)\hspace{25.3ex}{\neg}~\textsf{Intro}~7-21}\\~~
23.~\forall x(\neg P(x)\lor\neg Q(x))\hspace{24.4ex}{\forall}~\textsf{Intro}~2-22}$$
