Do Parentheses Affect Mixed Quantifier Order? Say I have a sequence of quantifiers like so:
$$
\\ \exists x\ ( \forall y\ F(x, y)) \tag{1}
$$
If there was no parentheses this would be
$$
\\ \exists x\  \forall y\ F(x, y) \tag{2}
$$
Take another expression
If there was no parentheses this would be
$$
\\ \forall y\  \exists x\ F(x, y) \tag{3}
$$
So, is $(1)$ equal to $(2)$ (basically the parentheses don't matter), or is it equal to $(3)$ (the parentheses causes us to look at the inner expression first)?
 A: $(1)$ and $(2)$ are the same, $(3)$ is different.
Quantifiers don't act like arithmetic operations: when we see $\mathsf{Q}x[\mathsf{stuff}]$ for a quantifier $\mathsf{Q}$, this basically means that the inside clause $[\mathsf{stuff}]$ only makes sense within the scope of $\mathsf{Q}x$. If you think of game semantics, we only start considering $[\mathsf{stuff}]$ after the appropriate player has picked a value for $x$. So parentheses used in the above ways actually indicate what to evaluate last: they show that a certain expression is within the scope of a certain quantifier.
A: You can imagine that quantifiers affect the thing to the right of them - for instance,
$$F(x,y)$$
asserts some predicate in two free values $x$ and $y$. We can create a new logical statement with a quantifier
$$\forall y\,F(x,y)$$
which only has one free variable - $x$ - and we are stating that for this unknown $x$, we have $F(x,y)$ for every $y$. We can then bind the variable $x$ with another quantifier like
$$\exists x \forall y\,F(x,y)$$
which has no free variables - simply asserting the existence of some $x$ so that the condition $\forall y \, F(x,y)$ holds.
Note how this proceeds from an expression with two free variables ($F(x,y)$) to one with none ($\exists x\forall y\,F(x,y)$) in steps, where the first step is to somehow apply $\forall y$ to the expression. The view that quantifiers are applied to the expression to their right starting at the innermost quantifier reflects some structure of mathematical organization - for instance, in analysis, one often starts by talking about a metric, then building a notion of a limit by wrapping some statements about that metric in quantifiers. Then maybe you take your idea of a limit and wrap it in another layer of quantifiers to discuss the idea of a convergent sequence - and maybe you wrap that up even more to get the idea of sequential compactness. Note that this process is the same as what is illustrated above, just more complicated: we take a small notion, and build quantifiers up moving "outwards" (to the left in notation) - and often these intermediate expressions analogous to $\forall y\,F(x,y)$ get independent meaning or names even if occurring within the scope of a bigger quantifier.
When you use parenthesis, this is the notion of "looking at the expression first" that is being invoked - and you can notice that this does not translate to writing the quantifier you see in the parenthesis first.
