最简单的方式(IMO)，不容易混淆，容易阅读:

// Three booleans, check if two or more are true

return ( a && ( b || c ) ) || ( b && c );

这类问题可以用卡诺图来解决:

      | C | !C
------|---|----
 A  B | 1 | 1 
 A !B | 1 | 0
!A !B | 0 | 0
!A  B | 1 | 0

由此推断，第一行需要一组，第一列需要两组，得到聚基因润滑剂的最优解:

(C && (A || B)) || (A && B)  <---- first row
       ^
       |
   first column without third case

return 1 << $a << $b << $c >= 1 << 2;

最明显的改进是:

// There is no point in an else if you already returned.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

然后

// There is no point in an if(true) return true otherwise return false.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
}

但这些改进都是微不足道的。

还有一种不太好的方法:

return (Boolean.valueOf(a).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(b).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(c).hashCode()) < 3705);

布尔哈希码值固定为true为1231,false为1237，因此同样可以使用<= 3699

以下是目前为止的答案:

public class X
{
    static boolean a(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
    }

    static boolean b(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return a ? (b || c) : (b && c);
    }

    static boolean c(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a & b) | (b & c) | (c & a));
    }

    static boolean d(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0) >= 2);
    }
}

并通过反编译器运行它们(javap -c X > results.txt):

Compiled from "X.java"
public class X extends java.lang.Object{
public X();
  Code:
   0:   aload_0
   1:   invokespecial   #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
   4:   return

static boolean a(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    8
   4:   iload_1
   5:   ifne    24
   8:   iload_1
   9:   ifeq    16
   12:  iload_2
   13:  ifne    24
   16:  iload_0
   17:  ifeq    28
   20:  iload_2
   21:  ifeq    28
   24:  iconst_1
   25:  goto    29
   28:  iconst_0
   29:  ireturn

static boolean b(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    20
   4:   iload_1
   5:   ifne    12
   8:   iload_2
   9:   ifeq    16
   12:  iconst_1
   13:  goto    33
   16:  iconst_0
   17:  goto    33
   20:  iload_1
   21:  ifeq    32
   24:  iload_2
   25:  ifeq    32
   28:  iconst_1
   29:  goto    33
   32:  iconst_0
   33:  ireturn

static boolean c(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   iload_1
   2:   iand
   3:   iload_1
   4:   iload_2
   5:   iand
   6:   ior
   7:   iload_2
   8:   iload_0
   9:   iand
   10:  ior
   11:  ireturn

static boolean d(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    8
   4:   iconst_1
   5:   goto    9
   8:   iconst_0
   9:   iload_1
   10:  ifeq    17
   13:  iconst_1
   14:  goto    18
   17:  iconst_0
   18:  iadd
   19:  iload_2
   20:  ifeq    27
   23:  iconst_1
   24:  goto    28
   27:  iconst_0
   28:  iadd
   29:  iconst_2
   30:  if_icmplt   37
   33:  iconst_1
   34:  goto    38
   37:  iconst_0
   38:  ireturn
}

你可以看到?:那些比你原来的修复版本稍好。最好的方法是完全避免分支的方法。从更少的指令(在大多数情况下)的角度来看，这很好，对于CPU的分支预测部分来说也更好，因为分支预测中的错误猜测可能会导致CPU失速。

我觉得最有效的是《月影》里的那个。它平均使用最少的指令，减少了CPU中管道停顿的机会。

为了100%确定，您需要找出每条指令的成本(以CPU周期为单位)，不幸的是，这是不容易获得的(您必须查看热点的源代码，然后查看CPU供应商的规格，以确定每条生成指令所花费的时间)。

请参阅Rotsor对代码的运行时分析的更新答案。