How to complete the follow natural deduction in bottom-up method

[searcher_]

I'm confuse about how to proceed with the follow natural deduction. I'm following the bottom-up method. Any suggestion will be welcome, but I think it's almost finished.

hypotheses found: [∀x∃y ¬α(x, y)] , [∃x∀yα(x, y)] , [∀yα(x, y)]

____________________________
[∃x∀yα(x, y)] ⊥
____________________________e∃
⊥
____________________________I¬
¬∃x∀yα(x, y)
____________________________I→
∀x∃y ¬α(x, y) → ¬∃x∀yα(x, y)

 

[William Elliot]

The last line gives
1st premise implies not 2nd premise.
Thus by modus ponens, not 2nd premise.
Conclude false.

It's unbelievable how over the decades,
FOL logic methods have become so encrusted
with confusing embellishments.