This is Ex $2.3.6$ in Dym and Mckean's Fourier Series and Integrals.
One can define the operator $\hat{f}(\gamma)$ for $f \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ as $\lim_{b \rightarrow \infty, \, a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_b^a f(x) e^{-2 \pi i x \gamma} dx$ where the limit takes place in $L^2$.
It turns out this is a length preserving isomorphism in $L^2$, with inverse operator $\check{f}(x) = \lim_{b \rightarrow \infty, \, a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_b^a f(\gamma) e^{2 \pi i x \gamma} d\gamma$.
I am now asked to show that for $f \in L^2$, if $\gamma^n \hat{f} (\gamma) \in L^2$ then $f$ is $C^\infty$ and all derivatives $D^n f \in L^2$.
Here is my proof which doesn't work yet: Let $g = \check{[(2 \pi i \gamma) \hat{f}]}$ and the idea is to show that $g = f'$ via $f(x) = f(0) + \int_0^x g(s) ds$. First you can see that $\int_0^x g(s) dx \lt \infty $ a.e. in $x$ since $g \in L^2$ by assumption and the integral can be expressed as the inner product $(g, \mathbb{1}(0, x))$ .
Then you can substitute $g$ to get $f(0) + \int_0^x \lim_{b \rightarrow \infty, \, a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_b^a 2 \pi i \gamma \,\hat{f}(\gamma) e^{2 \pi i t \gamma} d\gamma\, dt$.
Now the bad part is that the inner integral is an $L^2$ limit whereas I want to be able to say $f(0) + \int_0^x \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} 2 \pi i \gamma \,\hat{f}(\gamma) e^{2 \pi i t \gamma} d\gamma\, dt = f(0) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{x} 2 \pi i \gamma \,\hat{f}(\gamma) e^{2 \pi i t \gamma} dt \,d\gamma = f(0) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}(\gamma)(e^{2 \pi i x \gamma} - 1) \,d\gamma = \check{\hat{f}}(x) - \check{\hat{f}}(0) + f(0) = f(x)$ which would complete the proof.
I don't know how to justify these operations though.
Edit: Here is something I overlooked. Inner product with $\mathbb{1}(0,x)$ is a continuous operator on $L^2$ and therefore we can pull the inner limits out to get the simpler expression $f(0) + \lim_{b \rightarrow \infty, \, a \rightarrow -\infty} \int_0^x \int_{a}^{b} 2 \pi i \gamma \,\hat{f}(\gamma) e^{2 \pi i t \gamma} d\gamma\, dt $. Interchange of integrals is justified because of Fubini and I think this completes the proof.