1 ∀x [P(x) -> (∃y Q(x, y))] & ∀x [~P(x) -> ~∃y (Q(x, y))]
First, change each of the two implications to the appropriate disjunction using the rule of material implication.
2 ∀x [~P(x) v (∃y Q(x, y))] & ∀x [~~P(x) v ~∃y (Q(x, y))]
Next, eliminate the double-negation
3 ∀x [~P(x) v (∃y Q(x, y))] & ∀x [P(x) v ~∃y (Q(x, y))]
Now convert the existential quantifier in the second disjunct, so as to move the NOT inward
4 ∀x [~P(x) v (∃y Q(x, y))] & ∀x [P(x) v ∀y(~Q(x, y))]
Standardize the variables.
5 ∀x [~P(x) v (∃y Q(x, y))] & ∀x [P(x) v ∀z(~Q(x, z))]
Move all quantifiers outward
6 ∀x∃y[~P(x) v Q(x, y)] & ∀x∀z [P(x) v ~Q(x, z)]
Then
7 ∀x∀z∃y[(~P(x) v Q(x, y)) & [P(x) v ~Q(x, z))]
Skolemize existentially quantified y, replacing it with Skolem function f(x) which maps x to y.
8 ∀x∀z[[~P(x) v Q(x, f(x))] & [P(x) v ~Q(x, z)]]
Finally, drop universal quantifiers
9 [~P(x) v Q(x, f(x))] & [P(x) v ~Q(x, z)]
This translates, roughly speaking, to "Either x is not composite or it is divisible by some f(x) according to the conditions given. And either x is composite or it is not divisible by any z according to the conditions given."