Rigidity and Factivity

David Chalmers argued against the claim that for all p, or even for all entertainable p,
it is knowable a priori that p iff actually p. Instead of criticizing Chalmers’s argument, I suggest
that it can be generalized, in a sense, and in interesting ways, concerning other principles about
contingent a priori truths. In particular, I will argue that the puzzle presented by Chalmers runs
parallel to others that do not turn on ‘actually’. Furthermore, stronger arguments can be presented
that do not turn on apriority either, though they do entail the conclusion of Chalmers’s argument.
All such puzzles involve interactions between rigidifying sentence-forming devices with factive
operators.