What is a tit for tat strategy? Why might it be a rational strategy in and infinitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma?

Can you explain the "altruism and reciprocity" game theory, and provide an example? Is this the same as the "trust game?"

In game theory, what are some conflicts (history/fiction) in which there is a nash equilibrium between 2 actors?

Explain the meaning of a Nash Equilibrium. How does it differ from and equilibrium in dominant strategies?

Suppose two players play the prisoners' dilemma game a finite number of times, both players are rational, and the game is played with complete information, is a tit-for-tat strategy optimal in this case? Explain using your own words.

Hello, please help me to solve this Game Theory question. Thanks in advance! Hobby hunter Jack decides what to do the next weekend. He can either stay at home and watch movies (Movies), or call his friend Katherine to go hunting (Hunt). If he stays in, both Jack and Katherine get a payoff of 2. If he decides to hunt, he knows the situation with his friend will resemble a classic stag hunt game with simultaneous moves: Hunting a stag is better than hunting a rabbit, but it only works if they cooperate. The hunting subgame is captured as:     Katherine       Stag Rabbit Jack Stag 3 , 3 0 , 1   Rabbit 1 , 0 1 , 1 Draw the entire game as an extensive form (game tree), capturing both Jack’s initial decision (M or H) and the subsequent hunting game. Make sure to correctly label all players, actions, and information sets.

Describe the prisoner's dilemma Define Nash equilibrium. What is the Nash equilibrium of the prisoner's dilemma? Name two circumstances in which rational actors playing the prisoner's dilemma game can reasonably be expected not to end up in the Nash Equilibrium