how to prove ‘¬∃xP(x)→(P(a)→Q(a))’ from no premises? fitch

@GrahamKemp is correct. The statement says that if P(x) holds for no member of the universe of discourse, then P(a)->Q(a).

Recall that the truth table for the material conditional informs us that a material conditional statement is true when the antecedent is false.

So the proof is relatively easy:

¬∃xP(x)→(P(a)→Q(a))

What does it mean? I tried to understand what it means before proof but am totally clueless

It says: P(a)→Q(a) is true, if P(x) holds for no x.

So why would P(a)→Q(a) be true when that is assumed?