  In a recent letter, Stenull and Lubensky claim that periodic approximants of
Penrose tilings, which are generically isostatic, have a nonzero bulk modulus B
when disordered, and, therefore, Penrose tilings are good models of jammed
packings. The claim of a nonzero B, which is made on the basis of a normal mode
analysis of periodic Penrose approximants for a single value of the disorder
epsilon, is the central point of their letter: other properties of Penrose
tilings, such as the vanishing of the shear modulus, and a flat density of
vibrational states, are already shared by most geometrically disordered
isostatic networks studied so far. In this comment, Conjugate Gradient is used
to solve the elastic equations on approximants with up to 8x10^4 sites for
several values of epsilon, to show beyond reasonable doubt that Stenull and
Lubensky's claim is incorrect. The bulk modulus of generic Penrose tilings is
zero asymptotically. According to our results, B grows as (epsilon^2 L^3) when
(epsilon^2 L^3) << 10^2, then saturates, and finally decays as (epsilon^2
L^3)^{-2/3} ~ 1/L^2 for epsilon^2 L^3 >> 10^2. Stenull and Lubensky seem to
have only analyzed one value of epsilon for which saturation is reached at the
largest size studied. This led them to a wrong conclusion. We support our
results by also considering generic Penrose approximants with fixed boundaries,
whose bulk modulus constitutes a strict upper bound for that of periodic
systems, finding that these have a vanishing B as well for large L. We conclude
that the main point in Stenull and Lubensky letter is unjustified. Penrose
tilings are no better models of jammed packings than any of the previously
studied isostatic networks with geometric disorder.
