Since many philosophers deny that rigidity applies to designators for kinds (see §4.2), designators for other entities serve better to illustrate.
That is because one could say that 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' differ in assertoric content (in an extended sense, applied to designators rather than statements) but they do not differ in ingredient sense or modal content.
In other places, Kripke seems to have in mind another account of rigidity: one according to which a rigid designator designates its object in every possible world, whether or not the designatum exists in that world.
The following data structure was used: node1 xx node2, where node1 is the name of an enhancer, xx refers to any designator and node2 is the cDT sequence.
Some authors maintain that there are so many properties that allegedly non-rigid designators for properties always end up rigidly designating some property or other in the plenum: for example, 'the element most discussed in philosophy', a candidate non-rigid designator for gold, may be said to designate rigidly the property of being the element most discussed in philosophy.
One might take 'Mary's favourite colour' to designate different colours in different worlds, and thus understood it is not a rigid designator.
It may be regarded as a non-truthconditional, non-modal counterpart to "rigid designators" (Kripke 1972).
Initially a surveillance drone, the Predator was given a laser designator to enable it to guide precision-guided weapons from other aircraft, and then acquired its own weapons in the form of Hellfire missiles.
On the other hand, we may introduce a term with the stipulation that it is to be a rigid designator referring to whatever object actually satisfies the description.
Intuitively, rigid designation is needed on the part of both designators if there are to be true "theoretical identity statements": statements in which a designator designates by way of expressing explicitly in some manner one of the designatum's theoretically interesting essences.
