 Falsity, it seems, now no longer presents a difficulty, because if it is false that p then it is not a fact that p, so that (a) fails, and there is no appropriate candidate for the proposition that p to be identical  with.[13]  Notice that, in view of the considerations already aired in connection with the modal problem ((i) of this section), caution is here required. Suppose that it is true that p in the actual world, but false in some other possible world. According to the strategy that we have been considering on the identity theorist’s behalf, it would be wrong to say that, in the possible world where it is false that p, there is no such fact as the fact that p. The strategy has it that there is indeed such a fact, because it is (in the actual world) a fact that p, and that fact, and the true proposition, that p, go on existing in the possible world where it is false that p; it is just that that fact is not a fact in that possible world. But (12), the identity theorist will maintain, deals with this subtlety. In the possible world we are considering, where it is false that p, though the fact that p exists, it is not a fact that p, so (a) fails, and there is accordingly no risk of our getting hold of the “wrong” fact. Note also that if a Wittgensteinian line is adopted, while the (false) proposition that p will admittedly be identical with a fact—at the very least with itself—it will be possible, given the failure of (a), for the identity theorist to contend with a clear conscience that that fact is the wrong fact, which does not suffice to render the proposition true.