Eddie and tom have been arrested for a crime for which the police have limited evidence against them. they are being questioned about the crime in separate rooms. according to the prisoner's dilemma model, what would bring about the best result for eddie?

Betraying Tom brings about the best result for Eddie.

Explanation:

The prisoner's dilemma is a classic example of game theory, which aims to understand how rational agents behave. In our example, Eddie and Tom as the criminals being interrogated are the rational agents. Given that the police have only limited evidence against them, they rely solely on their confessions. The suspects have two choices: stay silent, or betray their partner. If both of them stay silent (they cooperate), they'll get a light sentence (let's say, a year in prison). If either one of them betrays the other, the traitor will walk free, while the betrayed one will get 10 years in prison. But if they betray each other, both will get 8 years. This can be better understood with a simple table:

Tom stays silent Tom betrays Eddie.

Eddie stays silent Both get 1 year Tom is free

Eddie gets 10 years

Eddie betrays Tom Eddie is free Both get 8 years

Tom gets 10 years

The best result for both of them is to cooperate and stay silent, so they get away with a light sentence. However, since neither of them knows what the other one will do, or have any way to influence their decision, they will tend towards betraying each other. The best Eddie can get is walking free, so betraying Tom brings about the best result for him. However, since it's possible Tom is thinking the exact same thing, it is very likely they will end up betraying each other, which is the worst result for both of them.

The prisoner's dilemma highlights how rational agents can, when following a course of action that they consider best suits their interests (which often means not cooperating), can lead to the worst possible outcome for them.