这个怎么样:

(a - b) ? c : a

If the goal is to return a bitwise two-out-of-three value for three operands, arithmetic and iterative approaches are apt to be relatively ineffective. On many CPU architectures, a good form would be "return ((a | b) & c) | (a & b);". That takes four boolean operations. On single-accumulator machines (common in small embedded systems) that's apt to take a total of seven instructions per byte. The form "return (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c);" is perhaps nicer looking, but it would require five boolean operations, or nine instructions per byte on a single-accumulator machine.

顺便提一下，在CMOS逻辑中，计算“不是三选二”需要12个晶体管(相比之下，逆变器需要2个晶体管，双输入NAND或NOR需要4个晶体管，而三输入NAND或NOR需要6个晶体管)。

作为@TofuBeer TofuBeer精彩帖子的补充，考虑@pdox pdox的回答:

static boolean five(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
    return a == b ? a : c;
}

再考虑一下它的分解版本，如"javap -c"所给出的:

static boolean five(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
    0:    iload_0
    1:    iload_1
    2:    if_icmpne    9
    5:    iload_0
    6:    goto    10
    9:    iload_2
   10:    ireturn

Pdox的答案编译成的字节代码比之前的任何答案都要少。它的执行时间与其他的相比如何?

one                5242 ms
two                6318 ms
three (moonshadow) 3806 ms
four               7192 ms
five  (pdox)       3650 ms

至少在我的电脑上，pdox的回答比@moonshadow moonshadow的回答稍微快一点，使得pdox的回答是最快的(在我的惠普/英特尔笔记本电脑上)。

我的第一个想法是

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

但为了便于阅读，我喜欢你们提出的a+b+c>=2的解决方案

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

int count=0;

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if (a)
        count++;
    if (b)
        count++;
    if (c)
        count++;

    if (count>1)
        return true;
    else
        return false;
}