c\}, \{\neg a, b, c\}\}$.\
Queries: $F_1 = a, F_2 = b, F_3 = c$; $k = 3$; $E(S, a) = E(S, b) = E(S, c) = 2/3$.\
Obliviously: $R(a) = R(b) = R(c) = 'true'$ which is inconsistent with $S$.\
Non-obliviously: let $S_0 = S$, $S_i = S_{i-1} \cup \{R(F_i)\}$ for $1 \le i \le k$. Then\
$E(S_0, a) = 2/3; R(a) = 'true'; \; S_1 = \{a, b \vee c, \neg b \vee 
\neg c\}$;\
$E(S_1, b) = 1/2; R(b) = 'true'; \;\; S_2 = \{a, b, \neg c\}$;\
$E(S_2, c) = 0; R(c) = 'false'$. All these beliefs hold in the first model of $S$. $\Box$

Non-oblivious reasoning requires keeping track of many previously produced beliefs, so in general it is more time-consuming than its oblivious counterpart. Thus it would be helpful to determine sets of queries that can be answered obliviously in any order without any risk of inconsistency. A trivial example is a set of all formulas $F$ such that $S \models F$. Subsection 4.3 presents less obvious sets allowing oblivious reasoning.

Semantics of typical models
===========================

This section introduces the basic notions of typical atoms and typical models, and studies stability of the corresponding 