Why does A=$\{\langle M_1,M_2,M_3 \rangle : L(M_1) \cap L(M_2) \ne L(M_3)\}$ isn't in $RE$. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this following Turing machine which determinate that the following language 
A=$\{\langle M_1,M_2,M_3 \rangle : L(M_1) \cap L(M_2) \ne L(M_3)\}$ is in $RE$.
I said that we can build a Turing machine that run all inputs in lexicography order,in parallel:
For an input $x$:
we run it on $M_1$ and $M_2$ if one of them rejected the input, we skip this input, and don't use it.
If both of them accepted:
we run $x$ on $M_3$ if it rejected we return $true$, if it accepted we skip this input and don't use it. 
If we are in infinite: both $M_1$ and $M_2$ are in loop for checking $x$, or one of them accepted and the other in an infinite loop, or $M_3$ in infinite loop for checking $x$, if we reached this part, so the machine is infinite loop.
What is not correct? I accept if I reached an $x$ which satisfies the condition or I'm in infinite loop.
 A: Suppose $M_1$ and $M_2$ are two Turing Machine that does not halt on anything. Suppose $M_3$ is a Turing Machine that halts only on some $x$. 
If you run your algorithm and try test $\langle M_1, M_2, M_3 \rangle$ by running $M_1$ and $M_2$ on $x$. Here you algorithm would would not halt because $M_1$ and $M_2$ would not halt. Because $L(M_1) = L(M_2) = \emptyset$ and $L(M_3) = \{x\}$, you can not skip this step because this the only difference in the language. 
The essential problem is the above and the last line where you said "I accept if I reached an x which satisfies the condition or I'm in infinite loop". How do you ever know that you are in an infinite loop. After running some Turing Machine for 1000 steps, how do you know that it wont halt on the 1001 step. 
However, the above only shows that your algorithm does not prove that show that $A$ is RE. You have not proven that $A$ is not RE. 
To prove $A$ is not RE, one possible method is to reduce a language known to be not RE to $A$. Let $K$ denote the Halting Problem which is not computable. Let $\bar{K}$ be the complement of $K$. Hence $\bar{K}$ is not RE. Now reduce $\bar{K}$ to $A$. (I leave the detail to you.) Now if $A$ was RE, this reduction would prove that $\bar{K}$ is RE. Contradiction. 
