 then the answer will be the Gricean one that (23) conveys less information than (17) or (21), under the reading of these two sentences that we are usually interested in, according to which Daniel remembers the relevant fact as a fact, for (23) is compatible with the falsity of “This is a leap year”. Hence to use (23) in a situation where one was in a position to use (17) or (21) would carry a misleading conversational implicature. That, at any rate, is one possible line for the identity theorist to take. (It is worth noting here that, if the identity theorist is right about this, it will follow that the “know that” construction will be subject to a similar ambiguity as the “remember that” construction, given that remembering is a special case of knowing. That is: “A knows that p” will mean either “A is acquainted with the fact that p, and is acquainted with it as a fact” or merely “A is acquainted with the fact that p, but not necessarily with it as such—either as a fact or even as a propositional object”.)