REPLY TO VALIDITY OF THE AHARONOV-BERGMANN-LEBOWITZ RULE

It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60. 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counte rfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aha ronov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964 )] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman's rejection of these proofs [ L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman's proposed formulati on of ''counterfactual probability,'' on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects. [ S1050-2947(98)03603-8].